Ex Arbitrators and their ongoing involvement, Do they still have access to privvy info Options

[Kato]

I can't remember if this has changed or not, but do ex-Arbitrators such as David Gerard and Jayjg still have access to the Arbitrators' channels of communication?

In the past, this has proved to be quite a source of corruption - with embedded Wiki-politicos able to influence the current Arbitrators, and / or lobby for certain decisions in their favor, long after it was deemed they were not up to the job themselves by public opinion.

[tarantino]

I can't remember if this has changed or not, but do ex-Arbitrators such as David Gerard and Jayjg still have access to the Arbitrators' channels of communication?

In the past, this has proved to be quite a source of corruption - with embedded Wiki-politicos able to influence the current Arbitrators, and / or lobby for certain decisions in their favor, long after it was deemed they were not up to the job themselves by public opinion.

The arbcom-l is now only for arbitrators. There is a separate functionaries-en moderated by Dmcdevit, JamesF, and Lar that includes both past and present arbitrators, as well as checkusers, oversighters and various other power players.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee

[wikiwhistle]

There is a separate functionaries-en moderated by Dmcdevit, JamesF, and Lar that includes both past and present arbitrators, as well as checkusers, oversighters and various other power players.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee

Does it discuss most details of the cases etc the way arbcom-l used to? Only checkusers etc haven't been elected to arbcom, have they? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) I didn't think most of them were on arbcom-l in the past.

I know there were a lot of leaksof arbcom or checkuser ifo to people nominally not on the arbcom list or not even checkusers themselves, some of which arbcom last year knew of/condoned.

[LaraLove]

Once arbs leave office, they should only be able to weigh in on anything if contacted by email or elsewhere offline by a current arb asking for advice.

Ex-arbs that take it upon themselves to carry out actions on behalf of the committee should be trout slapped (and by "trout", I really mean "bitch"). It does open up the channel to corruption, like an ex-arb filing an RFAR against a user and then blocking on behalf of the committee as a result, followed by an unjustified talk page protection for which he can't even recall the reasoning for... probably considering there was none.

[One]

I can't remember if this has changed or not, but do ex-Arbitrators such as David Gerard and Jayjg still have access to the Arbitrators' channels of communication?

Arbitrators may communicate through many channels, but as of January 17, ex-arbitrators are no longer on arbcom-l (which is the main channel for the sitting committee). Any emails you send to our address will only be forwarded to sitting members of the committee.

[tarantino]

I know there were a lot of leaksof arbcom or checkuser ifo to people nominally not on the arbcom list or not even checkusers themselves, some of which arbcom last year knew of/condoned.

Some of those leaks originated from or went through Wikileaker.

He seems to dislike Majorly, Lar and JoshuaZ, perhaps for good reason.

[Kelly Martin]

The arbcom-l is now only for arbitrators. There is a separate functionaries-en moderated by Dmcdevit, JamesF, and Lar that includes both past and present arbitrators,

Only some past arbitrators. I assure you that I was not invited to that list, and would likely not be welcome.

[everyking]

I can't remember if this has changed or not, but do ex-Arbitrators such as David Gerard and Jayjg still have access to the Arbitrators' channels of communication?

Arbitrators may communicate through many channels, but as of January 17, ex-arbitrators are no longer on arbcom-l (which is the main channel for the sitting committee). Any emails you send to our address will only be forwarded to sitting members of the committee.

But don't the arbitrators need those experienced voices of wisdom to guide them? (Isn't that the line?) I don't know how you can manage without the advice of sages like Gerard, Raul, and Jayjg. People with such long and distinguished records of fucking up are practically indispensible if you want to uphold the ArbCom's tradition of spoiling everything it touches.

Anyway, sarcasm aside, should I take this to mean that Jan. 17 was the date that the former arbs were kicked off the list? Also, I think the ArbCom should consider a new reform: opening up its archives. Those of us who have been unjustly treated by the ArbCom ought to know why we were subjected to that treatment.

[jch]

I can't remember if this has changed or not, but do ex-Arbitrators such as David Gerard and Jayjg still have access to the Arbitrators' channels of communication?

Arbitrators may communicate through many channels, but as of January 17, ex-arbitrators are no longer on arbcom-l (which is the main channel for the sitting committee). Any emails you send to our address will only be forwarded to sitting members of the committee.

But don't the arbitrators need those experienced voices of wisdom to guide them? (Isn't that the line?) I don't know how you can manage without the advice of sages like Gerard, Raul, and Jayjg. People with such long and distinguished records of fucking up are practically indispensible if you want to uphold the ArbCom's tradition of spoiling everything it touches.

Anyway, sarcasm aside, should I take this to mean that Jan. 17 was the date that the former arbs were kicked off the list? Also, I think the ArbCom should consider a new reform: opening up its archives. Those of us who have been unjustly treated by the ArbCom ought to know why we were subjected to that treatment.

Not gonna happen, obviously. They do discuss checkuser-related information on the list, as well as the occasional oversighted edit. They've got a valid reason (and since there's a written privacy policy, a legal obligation) to prevent the simple opening of those archives.

[EricBarbour]

But don't the arbitrators need those experienced voices of wisdom to guide them? (Isn't that the line?) I don't know how you can manage without the advice of sages like Gerard, Raul, and Jayjg. People with such long and distinguished records of fucking up are practically indispensible if you want to uphold the ArbCom's tradition of spoiling everything it touches.
Anyway, sarcasm aside, should I take this to mean that Jan. 17 was the date that the former arbs were kicked off the list? Also, I think the ArbCom should consider a new reform: opening up its archives. Those of us who have been unjustly treated by the ArbCom ought to know why we were subjected to that treatment.

Hear hear.

Not gonna happen, obviously. They do discuss checkuser-related information on the list, as well as the occasional oversighted edit. They've got a valid reason (and since there's a written privacy policy, a legal obligation) to prevent the simple opening of those archives.

And so they can cover up their massive screw-ups.

[everyking]

I can't remember if this has changed or not, but do ex-Arbitrators such as David Gerard and Jayjg still have access to the Arbitrators' channels of communication?

Arbitrators may communicate through many channels, but as of January 17, ex-arbitrators are no longer on arbcom-l (which is the main channel for the sitting committee). Any emails you send to our address will only be forwarded to sitting members of the committee.

But don't the arbitrators need those experienced voices of wisdom to guide them? (Isn't that the line?) I don't know how you can manage without the advice of sages like Gerard, Raul, and Jayjg. People with such long and distinguished records of fucking up are practically indispensible if you want to uphold the ArbCom's tradition of spoiling everything it touches.

Anyway, sarcasm aside, should I take this to mean that Jan. 17 was the date that the former arbs were kicked off the list? Also, I think the ArbCom should consider a new reform: opening up its archives. Those of us who have been unjustly treated by the ArbCom ought to know why we were subjected to that treatment.

Not gonna happen, obviously. They do discuss checkuser-related information on the list, as well as the occasional oversighted edit. They've got a valid reason (and since there's a written privacy policy, a legal obligation) to prevent the simple opening of those archives.

Of course, they don't need to open the archives completely. I wouldn't want anyone's privacy to be compromised. They can exclude anything that could be a privacy concern, or they could disclose mailing list threads only upon request, subject to review for privacy concerns.

[Lar]

Of course, they don't need to open the archives completely. I wouldn't want anyone's privacy to be compromised. They can exclude anything that could be a privacy concern, or they could disclose mailing list threads only upon request, subject to review for privacy concerns.

How would you know if it was or wasn't a privacy concern? Whose review would you accept?

There's a big flaw in your scheme...

[everyking]

Of course, they don't need to open the archives completely. I wouldn't want anyone's privacy to be compromised. They can exclude anything that could be a privacy concern, or they could disclose mailing list threads only upon request, subject to review for privacy concerns.

How would you know if it was or wasn't a privacy concern? Whose review would you accept?

There's a big flaw in your scheme...

I don't know, who's volunteering to vet the stuff? Anyone? Hey, I'll do it, you know, if they'll take me. How about you, Lar? Anything would be better than the current state of total secrecy. Even if someone erred on the side on extreme caution in vetting the e-mails, we'd still learn a lot of very important information. I'm still under sanctions today based on secret discussions that occurred back in 2005 and 2006, and I still have no idea what occurred in those discussions to lead to the sanctions.

[Moulton]

There's a big flaw in your scheme...

Of course that remark is more than a mere observation.

It's a theorem that applies to essentially all systems where there are standard and conventional desiderata for a functional policy that satisfies all reasonable people.

We talked about that elsewhere in some threads about Social Choice Functions. The technical analysis may be a tad daunting, but the fact that the findings won Kenneth Arrow the Nobel Prize in Economics should suffice to establish the importance of the result.

Given that all schemes have a "big flaw", the remaining question is, "What is the best we can do?"

Last year, the Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded to three researchers who answered that question with a remarkable new theory called "Mechanism Design" which at least seeks to devise a system immune from gaming.

[One]

Everyking, the whole reason people (both outsiders and arbitrators) send information to arbcom-l is that it's private. This is the social agreement of the list for all who participate. Opening up the archive would be betraying everyone who ever sent to the list. No, it's a bad idea.

The archive is reviewed by new arbitrators, who are free to form opinions about past deliberations.

[everyking]

Everyking, the whole reason people (both outsiders and arbitrators) send information to arbcom-l is that it's private. This is the social agreement of the list for all who participate. Opening up the archive would be betraying everyone who ever sent to the list. No, it's a bad idea.

The archive is reviewed by new arbitrators, who are free to form opinions about past deliberations.

If the arbitrators didn't rely so heavily on the list, none of this would be a problem. You should conduct your general deliberations in public, leaving the list solely for discussion of private information. Why is the ArbCom so obsessed with maintaining secrecy in its decision-making?

[Sarcasticidealist]

This is the social agreement of the list for all who participate.

Moulton will be so pleased.

[Moulton]

This is the social agreement of the list for all who participate

Moulton will be so pleased.

Now if they would just widen the concept to encompass the rest of the project, we could all go on to more important issues in life.

Like learning the rest of all the worthwhile sum of human knowledge besides that essential item.

[Doc glasgow]

The arbcom mailing list archives cannot be retrospectively opened. Three reasons
1) Many persons mailing to them did so in the expectation that correspondence would remain private as per the current policy at the time
2) Arbs may indeed have made unguarded remarks, or given personal information, under that same expectation. Perhaps they should not have had a channel with those expectations, but they did.
3) It would far too time consuming for anyone (even if "trusted" - why whom? - people existed) - would they secure the permission of all parties before release.

However, I've argued elsewhere, that the indefinite retention of these archives is highly inappropriate, and dangerous. If I decide I trust the current arbs and send personal info to the list, then I am in effect trusting that information to all future arbs - which over they years may be hundreds of people. At some point, there may well be a bad-egg who decides to selectively leak.

Now, I understand that some "institutional memory" may be good. New arbs may want to read old posts referring to some issue that reoccurs on their watch. However, I've long argued that the archeives would be best shredded after a set period (1-2 years). Any notes needed for longer term can always be made on the arbcom wiki in a more contained fashion.

[Kelly Martin]

1) Many persons mailing to them did so in the expectation that correspondence would remain private as per the current policy at the time

An absurd expectation with respect to any mailing list that includes Jimbo; Jimbo has long felt empowered to forward any email he receives to anyone he wants at any time.

Speaking of which, is Jimbo still on the arbcom list?

I'm still under sanctions today based on secret discussions that occurred back in 2005 and 2006, and I still have no idea what occurred in those discussions to lead to the sanctions.

I've looked through my archives from that timeframe. Nothing in them would provide you with any information you don't already have.

I am, however, tempted to release my arbcom-l archives; at this point I don't see how it could hurt me.

[Jon Awbrey]

Tagged for Web Searches under • Wikipedia Transparency •

The arbcom mailing list archives cannot be retrospectively opened. Three reasons

1. Many persons mailing to them did so in the expectation that correspondence would remain private as per the current policy at the time
2. Arbs may indeed have made unguarded remarks, or given personal information, under that same expectation. Perhaps they should not have had a channel with those expectations, but they did.
3. It would far too time consuming for anyone (even if "trusted" — why whom? — people existed) — would they secure the permission of all parties before release.

However, I've argued elsewhere, that the indefinite retention of these archives is highly inappropriate, and dangerous. If I decide I trust the current arbs and send personal info to the list, then I am in effect trusting that information to all future arbs — which over they years may be hundreds of people. At some point, there may well be a bad-egg who decides to selectively leak.

Now, I understand that some "institutional memory" may be good. New arbs may want to read old posts referring to some issue that reoccurs on their watch. However, I've long argued that the archeives would be best shredded after a set period (1–2 years). Any notes needed for longer term can always be made on the arbcom wiki in a more contained fashion.

Framing this post for the next time someone asks me about the meaning of WIKIPEDIA TRANSPARENCY.

Ja³ (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[One]

The arbcom mailing list archives cannot be retrospectively opened. Three reasons
1) Many persons mailing to them did so in the expectation that correspondence would remain private as per the current policy at the time

This is the main reason that I am opposed to opening them. The mailing list was built on this expectation. Although an alternate arrangement is conceivable, it would be damaging to upend that expectation--we have nothing if not the community's trust, and publicizing private correspondence would be a gross violation of that trust. The new arbitrators have been trying to make things more transparent--publishing our internal votes, for example--but the norm for arbcom-l privacy is not going to change, Everking.

It would be like demanding the notes, drafts, and correspondence of appellate courts in the United States, asking "why are the Federal Courts so obsessed with secrecy?" I can certainly imagine a justice system where no such norm existed (an inferior one, in my view), but changing the rules mid-course would almost certainly destroy the collegiality of the US judiciary. In this case, it would also badly burn everyone who sent arbcom emails with some minimal expectation of privacy.

WR administration understands this ("the anti-cabal forum"), as do the Federal Courts, and even the most pro-transparency reformer Arbitrators get it. This is a non-starter.

[Milton Roe]

It would be like demanding the notes, drafts, and correspondence of appellate courts in the United States, asking "why are the Federal Courts so obsessed with secrecy?" I can certainly imagine a justice system where no such norm existed (an inferior one, in my view), but changing the rules mid-course would almost certainly destroy the collegiality of the US judiciary.

You can't be serious about defending the US judiciary's expectation that their inter-office communications to be forever privileged in the name of continued "collegiality"! For the US judiciary has itself decided to invade the private records of every important decision-making body in existance, not excepting the executive privilege of the US presidency (Nixon v. US). So there is no more "congeniality" for doctors, executives, legislators, military decision-makers, heads of state. Say good-bye to the history that isn't recorded, because it's now no longer safe to do it, also. Your diaries are not safe. It's all subject to subpoena if it's been recorded in any medium, except for documents from the ONE branch of government which has decided that it's own feces are not odiferous, and its own decisions are just more important than anybody else's. Narcissists! The judiciary here reminds me of nothing so much as...... Wikipedia. And the judges are behaving just like privileged asshole administrators.

Now, you might argue that the judiciary has always expected that its records would not be subject to prying eyes. Well, what if they have? So have priests, doctors, psychiatrists, presidents, and so and so on, on the basis of long tradition and history. They've been wrong, as the judiciary has ruled that it has the right to look at anything but itself. So? Sauce for the goose. It's time for some people to have a dose of their medicine-- always a good thing in life.

[One]

It would be like demanding the notes, drafts, and correspondence of appellate courts in the United States, asking "why are the Federal Courts so obsessed with secrecy?" I can certainly imagine a justice system where no such norm existed (an inferior one, in my view), but changing the rules mid-course would almost certainly destroy the collegiality of the US judiciary.

You can't be serious about defending the US judiciary's expectation that their inter-office communications to be forever privileged in the name of continued "collegiality"! For the US judiciary has itself decided to invade the private records of every important decision-making body in existance, not excepting the executive privilege of the US presidency (Nixon v. US). So there is no more "congeniality" for doctors, executives, legislators, military decision-makers, heads of state. Say good-bye to the history that isn't recorded because it's no longer safe to do it, also. Your diaries are not safe. It's all subject to subpoena if it's been recorded in any medium, except for documents from the ONE branch of government which has decided that it's own feces are not odiferous, and its own decisions are just more important than anybody else's. Narcissists! The judiciary here reminds me of nothing so much as Wikipedia.

Y'know, I agree with you to a large extent. The power to invade these norms for privacy has turned many decision-making processes into a farce. City councils don't want to have public debates about zoning because their laws might be invalidated by courts looking for racist motives. Corporate board rooms don't really want to know about fraud, because then they would have a duty to investigate it.

I think that this often makes the world worse. I would fault the courts for this.

But the solution is to enforce some of the old norms--not to violate the last ones that exist.

[Jon Awbrey]

Tagged for Web Searches under • Wikipedia Transparency •

The arbcom mailing list archives cannot be retrospectively opened. Three reasons

1. Many persons mailing to them did so in the expectation that correspondence would remain private as per the current policy at the time.

This is the main reason that I am opposed to opening them. The mailing list was built on this expectation. Although an alternate arrangement is conceivable, it would be damaging to upend that expectation — we have nothing if not the community's trust, and publicizing private correspondence would be a gross violation of that trust. The new arbitrators have been trying to make things more transparent — publishing our internal votes, for example — but the norm for arbcom-l privacy is not going to change, Everking.

It would be like demanding the notes, drafts, and correspondence of appellate courts in the United States, asking "why are the Federal Courts so obsessed with secrecy?" I can certainly imagine a justice system where no such norm existed (an inferior one, in my view), but changing the rules mid-course would almost certainly destroy the collegiality of the US judiciary. In this case, it would also badly burn everyone who sent arbcom emails with some minimal expectation of privacy.

WR administration understands this ("the anti-cabal forum"), as do the Federal Courts, and even the most pro-transparency reformer Arbitrators get it. This is a non-starter.

Framing this post for the next time someone asks me about the meaning of WIKIPEDIOT.

Ja³ (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[One]

Framing this post for the next time someone asks me about the meaning of WIKIPEDIOT.

Ja³ (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Oh? You might want to frame this one too then. Expectations of privacy should not be breached lightly. Do you understand this simple concept?

Nein³

[Viridae]

I am, however, tempted to release my arbcom-l archives; at this point I don't see how it could hurt me.

How recent are they?

[Kelly Martin]

I am, however, tempted to release my arbcom-l archives; at this point I don't see how it could hurt me.

How recent are they?

October 2005 through September 2006.

[Doc glasgow]

I am, however, tempted to release my arbcom-l archives; at this point I don't see how it could hurt me.

I think you made my point. You *can* with impunity release your archive (whether you *ought* to is another matter), as can any past current or future arb.

Indeed there is nothing to stop any arb at any time accessing the archive, copying stuff, and releasing it at any time they want, either under their own name or anonymously.

Now, it might be that trust is created because the community choose arbs that they believe will not breach trust like that, but it is unrealistic to expect that over the years, with a turnover of arbs, there will not be people disgruntled with the community or desiring to settle scores with the community or specific individuals within it.

Now, I agree that the expectation of privacy /ought/ to be respected, and any retrospective move against that is ethically reprehensible. However, I also agree that the expectation of privacy when posts and archives are shared with numerous and changing volunteers is wholly realistic. Hence, whilst arbcom ought to make every effort to keep faith with the expectation of privacy previously given, they ought also to inform those who send "private communications" to arbcom that there is no promise of privacy, and that there is nothing that arbcom or the WMF can or will do if privacy is
breached. No duty of care can be implied.

Sadly, and more worryingly, the same is true of OTRS. Here, I think there's a double problem because sometimes the impression is given that e-mailing OTRS is e-mailing "wikimedia" = the foundation. Indeed, people are sometimes invited to "e-mail OTRS privately". But the foundation cannot guarantee privacy, and will not, Iexpect, accept any liability if privacy is violated by a volunteer.

Now, granted if I e-mail any corporate body, an employee may be indiscreet with my communication. However, in such a case the corporation owes me a duty of care, and is vicariously liable for the actions of the employee/agent. I don't need to sue the specific person. However, I doubt that the WMF would see it that way. They don't even know the names of all their OTRS volunteers, and no contract exists with them.

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow:

[One]

I am, however, tempted to release my arbcom-l archives; at this point I don't see how it could hurt me.

Now, it might be that trust is created because the community choose arbs that they believe will not breach trust like that, but it is unrealistic to expect that over the years, with a turnover of arbs, there will not be people disgruntled with the community or desiring to settle scores with the community or specific individuals within it.

Now, I agree that the expectation of privacy /ought/ to be respected, and any retrospective move against that is ethically reprehensible.

Thank you.

Kelly, you weren't selected by the community, but this Arbitrator thinks you weren't a bad volunteer. There are some on this site who would cheer at some of the things you said on that list, including me, but that's not a good enough reason to publish it now. Nor does Everyking's rationale pass mustard (*shock* Raul654 and others said bad things about Everyking! As if we didn't know).

I implore you not to do this. And if you must, at least read the stuff before you post it; much of it has no business on a publicly-accessible website.


Oh, and I agree with Doc's broader point as well.

[Kelly Martin]

Kelly, you weren't selected by the community, but this Arbitrator thinks you weren't a bad volunteer. There are some on this site who would cheer at some of the things you said on that list, including me, but that's not a good enough reason to publish it now. Nor does Everyking's rationale pass mustard (*shock* Raul654 and others said bad things about Everyking! As if we didn't know).

I implore you not to do this. And if you must, at least read the stuff before you post it; much of it has no business on a publicly-accessible website.

Your implorements might carry more weight if Jimmy Wales and the Wikipedia "community" hadn't consistently treated me like shit for the past two-plus years. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

I think you made my point. You *can* with impunity release your archive (whether you *ought* to is another matter), as can any past current or future arb.

No, I think I'm a somewhat special case here. All current arbitrators and most former ones would risk a reputational loss if they did that. However, Wikipedia has already done just about as much as it can to systematically destroy my reputation, which means I really don't have anything to lose. I mean, really, how much more damage do you think you people can do at this point?

[One]

Kelly, you weren't selected by the community, but this Arbitrator thinks you weren't a bad volunteer. There are some on this site who would cheer at some of the things you said on that list, including me, but that's not a good enough reason to publish it now. Nor does Everyking's rationale pass mustard (*shock* Raul654 and others said bad things about Everyking! As if we didn't know).

I implore you not to do this. And if you must, at least read the stuff before you post it; much of it has no business on a publicly-accessible website.

Your implorements might carry more weight if Jimmy Wales and the Wikipedia "community" hadn't consistently treated me like shit for the past two-plus years. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

I see.

Well, at the least, try not to hurt anyone who did nothing to harm you. Lot of stuff in those archives, and not all of it is ArbCom tomfoolery.

[Jon Awbrey]

Oh? You might want to frame this one too then. Expectations of privacy should not be breached lightly. Do you understand this simple concept?

Nein³

Framing this post for the next time someone asks me about the meaning of WIKIΦUCKING MORON.

Ja³ (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[The Adversary]

Kelly, you weren't selected by the community, but this Arbitrator thinks you weren't a bad volunteer. There are some on this site who would cheer at some of the things you said on that list, including me, but that's not a good enough reason to publish it now. Nor does Everyking's rationale pass mustard (*shock* Raul654 and others said bad things about Everyking! As if we didn't know).

I implore you not to do this. And if you must, at least read the stuff before you post it; much of it has no business on a publicly-accessible website.

Your implorements might carry more weight if Jimmy Wales and the Wikipedia "community" hadn't consistently treated me like shit for the past two-plus years. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

I have no idea as to what are on those lists; but I don´t like the thought of "changing the rules during the game". If people have posted on that list expecting it to be private, well, then my opinion of you will not increase if you publish them.

As for being treated like shit: well, Kelly; it is quite obvious that you hold certain leading members of WP in the same high regard (that´t ok; I think Jimbo is a prick, too (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) ) But I wouldn´t like to see you use ammo which will backfire on yourself, ..or harm "bystanders".

[Kelly Martin]

Well, at the least, try not to hurt anyone who did nothing to harm you. Lot of stuff in those archives, and not all of it is ArbCom tomfoolery.

A couple years ago I advised Jimmy that I felt that Irpen was libelling me in community discussions. Jimmy eventually (after repeated proddings) agreed with me and said that he would "take care of it". Nothing was ever done. No, I'd say that Wikipedia is fundamentally bankrupt, and I owe it nothing.

There is nothing in my archives that is of any significance to anyone in the "real world"; just some political snipery that would be doubtlessly fascinating within the superheatedly irrelevant microcosm of Wikipedia politics. Maybe I should send them to a third party who could decide what content ought to be released and what should be redacted; they're doubtlessly of interest for anybody trying to understand the history of Wikipedia's odd political system.

The only people who would be harmed by releasing those archives are the people cavorting about in them, and as virtually all of them are complicit in some way with perpetuating Wikipedia's defamation engine, they have waived any right to be free from harm as consequence for their actions. Very little of what is, or at least was, discussed on the arbcom-l archives has anything to do with "private emails forwarded to the committee in confidence"; most of it is just the list members gossiping amongst themselves. The "we can't release these discussions out of privacy concerns" is an excuse, and nothing more.

[One]

Very little of what is, or at least was, discussed on the arbcom-l archives has anything to do with "private emails forwarded to the committee in confidence"; most of it is just the list members gossiping amongst themselves.

I agree that most of it is from list members themselves (and some hobnobs). If you could at least take the minority of other stuff off the table (and redact the IP/personal information discussed), I would personally appreciate it. I'm saying that as someone who wasn't even involved with Wikipedia during this period.

This is purely out of concern for potential bystanders (as few as they may be).

Sincere thanks for considering it.

[GlassBeadGame]

Kelly, you weren't selected by the community, but this Arbitrator thinks you weren't a bad volunteer. There are some on this site who would cheer at some of the things you said on that list, including me, but that's not a good enough reason to publish it now. Nor does Everyking's rationale pass mustard (*shock* Raul654 and others said bad things about Everyking! As if we didn't know).

I implore you not to do this. And if you must, at least read the stuff before you post it; much of it has no business on a publicly-accessible website.

Your implorements might carry more weight if Jimmy Wales and the Wikipedia "community" hadn't consistently treated me like shit for the past two-plus years. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

I think you made my point. You *can* with impunity release your archive (whether you *ought* to is another matter), as can any past current or future arb.

No, I think I'm a somewhat special case here. All current arbitrators and most former ones would risk a reputational loss if they did that. However, Wikipedia has already done just about as much as it can to systematically destroy my reputation, which means I really don't have anything to lose. I mean, really, how much more damage do you think you people can do at this point?

WMF is completely irresponsible in it's consistent inappropriate delegation of tasks to persons they cannot reasonably expect to control. In fact turning their back on responsibility, whether through seeking immunity for defamation or creating an artificial distinction between WMF and "the community" in relation to issues of privacy or child protection seems basic to be WMF's risk management strategy. Other non-profits vet, train, supervise and review their volunteers. WMF does not, relying on the fiction of "the community" to cover it's tracks. Releasing your archives would be a good means of driving this point home in a manner that would create embarrassment internally while likely being mostly harmless to innocent persons outside of Wikipedia.

[Jon Awbrey]

All things considered, I think that ArbClown Emeriti should have access to privvy info.

I don't think anyone wants to see the exploding toxic waste tsunami that might result if people so full of crap can't find a privvy in time.

Ja³ (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

I'm thinking that it might be interesting to start a blog or something somewhere and post a message at a time with necessary redactions. As it happens, the very first message in my archive is from some idiot who emailed his/her phone number to the arbcom, and while the individual in question is a fr00t l00p, there's certainly no need to put his/her number out there for all the world to crankcall.

Plus, think of the AdSense revenue. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Doc glasgow]

I think you made my point. You *can* with impunity release your archive (whether you *ought* to is another matter), as can any past current or future arb.

No, I think I'm a somewhat special case here. All current arbitrators and most former ones would risk a reputational loss if they did that. However, Wikipedia has already done just about as much as it can to systematically destroy my reputation, which means I really don't have anything to lose. I mean, really, how much more damage do you think you people can do at this point?

No, I don't think you are a special case. That's my point.

You are (presumably IANAL and all that) at liberty to disclose any arbcom correspondence you have, as is any arbiter past, present, or future. There are only three two disincentives for anyone to do it.

1)Loss of standing with the community/arbcom/WMF. Now, you've obviously no reason to care about that. But my point is that any arb can decide not to care about that.
2)Personal ethics respecting privacy expectations for their own sake, or because of the potential damage that might be done. But my point would be that's a personal judgement call, that no one can really predict for another.

My point is that you may decide you are ethically justified in publishing, or indeed that you are not justified but wish to be evil. But you will, over time, probably not be unique in your indiscretion. We've already had arbcom leakers, who either rejected 1 and 2 above, or believed they'd never get caught. There will be more in future. It is simply statistically predictable. There is simply no way that the "checks and balances" the community uses in picking arbs can prevent someone acting in this way later.

I'm not making an ethical, but a practical judgement. Whatever the Kantian ought, this will happen.

[One]

I'm thinking that it might be interesting to start a blog or something somewhere and post a message at a time with necessary redactions. As it happens, the very first message in my archive is from some idiot who emailed his/her phone number to the arbcom, and while the individual in question is a fr00t l00p, there's certainly no need to put his/her number out there for all the world to crankcall.

Plus, think of the AdSense revenue. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Thanks. There are plenty of interesting threads that have very little or no third-party privacy concerns. These would be easy to redact. If you must do it, do it like this.

[everyking]

In my view, shining some sunlight on the ArbCom's internal deliberations would benefit the project considerably, and I urge Kelly to disclose whatever e-mails she has that do not compromise someone's privacy. There are many, many questions that could be answered through access to those e-mails, not just for specific individuals like myself, but in terms of how the ArbCom judges Wikipedia's volunteers in general.

[Doc glasgow]

Kelly, you weren't selected by the community, but this Arbitrator thinks you weren't a bad volunteer. There are some on this site who would cheer at some of the things you said on that list, including me, but that's not a good enough reason to publish it now. Nor does Everyking's rationale pass mustard (*shock* Raul654 and others said bad things about Everyking! As if we didn't know).

I implore you not to do this. And if you must, at least read the stuff before you post it; much of it has no business on a publicly-accessible website.

Your implorements might carry more weight if Jimmy Wales and the Wikipedia "community" hadn't consistently treated me like shit for the past two-plus years. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

I think you made my point. You *can* with impunity release your archive (whether you *ought* to is another matter), as can any past current or future arb.

No, I think I'm a somewhat special case here. All current arbitrators and most former ones would risk a reputational loss if they did that. However, Wikipedia has already done just about as much as it can to systematically destroy my reputation, which means I really don't have anything to lose. I mean, really, how much more damage do you think you people can do at this point?

WMF is completely irresponsible in it's consistent inappropriate delegation of tasks to persons they cannot reasonably expect to control. In fact turning their back on responsibility, whether through seeking immunity for defamation or creating an artificial distinction between WMF and "the community" in relation to issues of privacy or child protection seems basic to be WMF's risk management strategy. Other non-profits vet, train, supervise and review their volunteers. WMF does not, relying on the fiction of "the community" to cover it's tracks. Releasing your archives would be a good means of driving this point home in a manner that would create embarrassment internally while likely being mostly harmless to innocent persons outside of Wikipedia.

Ah, but there is another way.

I withdrew from OTRS a year or two ago. I did so on legal advice.

Partly out of a misplaced loyalty, I have never aired those legal concerns before.

When the Foundation asked for identifying information from OTRS. It suddenly left me asking what would happen in the event of some disgruntled person suing over an article I have involved myself in as an OTRS volunteer. The Foundation were most likely to claim not only s230 immunity for the actions of editors, but to decrying any liability for OTRS either.

In which case, it is likely that at the fist sign of a writ, even a tendentious one, the Foundation would roll over and supply my details to the litigant. Since the volunteer has no contract with the foundation, any assistance or defence the foundation might offer the individual would be purely voluntary. And indeed, it would not be in their interests to involve themselves, lest it appear that they were treating OTRS personnel as their agents. Without a contract, the volunteer has no rights of indemnity even for good-faith actions. Even a spurious lawsuit would likely have resulted in my name being public, and in legal expense incurred.

The lawyer I spoke with said "whilst the risks are somewhat minimal, why would you wish to run them for no personal remuneration, credit or advancement? Is it that much fun?"

When I considered that. I had no desire to jeopardise my family finances any longer.

Maybe other OTRS people should consider this.

[GlassBeadGame]

Ah, but there is another way.

I withdrew from OTRS a year or two ago. I did so on legal advice.

Partly out of a misplaced loyalty, I have never aired those legal concerns before.

When the Foundation asked for identifying information from OTRS. It suddenly left me asking what would happen in the event of some disgruntled person suing over an article I have involved myself in as an OTRS volunteer. The Foundation were most likely to claim not only s230 immunity for the actions of editors, but to decrying any liability for OTRS either.

In which case, it is likely that at the fist sign of a writ, even a tendentious one, the Foundation would roll over and supply my details to the litigant. Since the volunteer has no contract with the foundation, any assistance or defence the foundation might offer the individual would be purely voluntary. And indeed, it would not be in their interests to involve themselves, lest it appear that they were treating OTRS personnel as their agents. Without a contract, the volunteer has no rights of indemnity even for good-faith actions. Even a spurious lawsuit would likely have resulted in my name being public, and in legal expense incurred.

The lawyer I spoke with said "whilst the risks are somewhat minimal, why would you wish to run them for no personal remuneration, credit or advancement? Is it that much fun?"

When I considered that. I had no desire to jeopardise my family finances any longer.

Maybe other OTRS people should consider this.

Exactly right.

[The Adversary]

<snip interesting post>

A very interesting post. But is this financial risk general knowledge among OTRS-editors?

[Kelly Martin]

A very interesting post. But is this financial risk general knowledge among OTRS-editors?

Of course not; they all think that Wikimedia will protect them.

[SirFozzie]

Oh? You might want to frame this one too then. Expectations of privacy should not be breached lightly. Do you understand this simple concept?

Nein³

Framing this post for the next time someone asks me about the meaning of WIKIΦUCKING MORON.

Ja³ (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Framing this user for the next time someone asks me about the meaning of TIRED, OVERPLAYED IDIOT

Honestly Jon, Have a nice tall glass of shut the fuck up if all you're going to do is contribute nonsense.

[Jon Awbrey]

Everyone seems to be missing the point that the existence and the operation of these Closed Door Meetings falsifies the claims that Wikipedia supporters are constantly making about the Openness and the Transparency of the Wikipedia decision-making process, claims that they exploit on a daily basis to deceive their Participants, the Press, and the Public at Large.

There is no obligation of etiquette or ethics to help Wikipediots maintain their lies.

Ja³ (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Tagged for Web Searches under • Wikipedia Transparency •

[everyking]

Everyone seems to be missing the point that the existence and the operation of these Closed Door Meetings falsifies the claims that Wikipedia supporters are constantly making about the Openness and the Transparency of the Wikipedia decision-making process, claims that they exploit on a daily basis to deceive their Participants, the Press, and the Public at Large.

For once, Jon makes an excellent point. The secret decision-making that characterizes arbitration is antithetical to the project's basic ideals.

[Jon Awbrey]

A very interesting post. But is this financial risk general knowledge among OTRS-editors?

Of course not; they all think that Wikimedia will protect them.

You're not suggesting that the WMF would Violate Their Expectations, are you?

Well, I'm sure they wouldn't do it, er, lightly.

Jon

[Jon Awbrey]

Oh? You might want to frame this one too then. Expectations of privacy should not be breached lightly. Do you understand this simple concept?

Nein³

Framing this post for the next time someone asks me about the meaning of WIKIΦUCKING MORON.

Ja³ (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Framing this user for the next time someone asks me about the meaning of TIRED, OVERPLAYED IDIOT.

Honestly Jon, Have a nice tall glass of shut the fuck up if all you're going to do is contribute nonsense.

Honestly, Sir F, a couple of times now I wrote out these nice, articulate, 3 paragraph explanations of the fundamental flaws in 1's reasoning — and then I realized that I was explaining something that every 3rd grader (8 year old) already understands about playground ethics and/or note-passing etiquette. That and the fact that we have discussed all these issues to death more than a dozen times now forced me to try and be a little more succinct.

Now, 1 passed me a link to one person's expression of personal opinion in the Inner Sanctum, but what does it say on the door thereof? —

Please note: While we ask that members keep this material confidential, there is no guarantee of secrecy in this subforum.

So once again I find myself forced to make allowances for the fact that some of our members have yet to achieve a 1st grade (6 year old) reading level.

Ja, Ja, Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[EricBarbour]

Fuuuuuuuuuuuck all this.

Kelly, let's see the list archive.

At least you might send me samples privately. If it's THAT embarrassing,
and exposes you to legal liability.....just destroy the files. Such material isn't
legally dangerous, at least in the USA, unless it "jeopardized national security"
or somesuch crap. Remember that First Amendment thing?
So I don't understand what the worry is.

In which case, it is likely that at the fist sign of a writ, even a tendentious one, the Foundation would roll over and supply my details to the litigant. Since the volunteer has no contract with the foundation, any assistance or defence the foundation might offer the individual would be purely voluntary. And indeed, it would not be in their interests to involve themselves, lest it appear that they were treating OTRS personnel as their agents. Without a contract, the volunteer has no rights of indemnity even for good-faith actions. Even a spurious lawsuit would likely have resulted in my name being public, and in legal expense incurred.

Perhaps...in a UK or European court. Not so much in the US.

Kindly stop dancing around the question.
Either prove the archive is "terribly damaging",
or just let it all into public visibility.

What did those nerds say to each other that can possibly
be "harmful", given they have already embarrassed themselves
publicly and repeatedly??

[Kelly Martin]

Kelly, let's see the list archive.

I've set up the blog here. I'll be posting emails as time permits. There are about 4300 emails in the folder, so this may take a while. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[everyking]

What did those nerds say to each other that can possibly
be "harmful", given they have already embarrassed themselves
publicly and repeatedly??

If the contents of the list revealed that ArbCom dialogue consists in large part of denigrating volunteers without any serious reasoning or review of evidence--which I consider quite likely in light of the ArbCom's history of poor decision-making--then it would certainly have the potential to be very harmful to the reputations of arbitrators and former arbitrators. I think all this discussion of privacy concerns should be set aside for the time being: for many, if not most cases, there are no privacy elements involved at all. My case is one such example. Kelly should feel free to post all the e-mails pertaining to my case; we could draw plenty of conclusions about ArbCom decision-making based on that case alone.

[Somey]

I see this new blog as a good thing, myself. I've always wondered who really pulled the trigger on JFK, and if the first post is any indication, maybe we can finally clear up this whole business with 67.124.200.240 and the Ann Coulter (T-H-L-K-D) article once and for all. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

(No matches found for that IP range in the WR database, btw, just in case anyone is wondering...)

[Doc glasgow]

In which case, it is likely that at the fist sign of a writ, even a tendentious one, the Foundation would roll over and supply my details to the litigant. Since the volunteer has no contract with the foundation, any assistance or defence the foundation might offer the individual would be purely voluntary. And indeed, it would not be in their interests to involve themselves, lest it appear that they were treating OTRS personnel as their agents. Without a contract, the volunteer has no rights of indemnity even for good-faith actions. Even a spurious lawsuit would likely have resulted in my name being public, and in legal expense incurred.

Perhaps...in a UK or European court. Not so much in the US.

Ha.

You think if someone in the US seeks the name and address of an OTRS volunteer, that the Foundation will resist?

[Bottled_Spider]

Kelly, let's see the list archive.

I've set up the blog here. I'll be posting emails as time permits. There are about 4300 emails in the folder, so this may take a while. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This is a good thing you're doing, particularly if there's some really funny stuff amongst it all. I like to think it's "brown trousers" time at Wiki Central, and I have visions of a great big stick poking around inside an ant's nest.

[dtobias]

It's likely that Kelly's new site will become the BADDEST of the BADSITES in the eyes of the cliqueistas... look for the vigorous suppression of any attempt to link to or refer to it.

[Kato]

I see this new blog as a good thing, myself. I've always wondered who really pulled the trigger on JFK...

John Seigenthaler.

And then he ate him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=74188370

(note that this edit was a year after the whole media storm)

[Kelly Martin]

It's likely that Kelly's new site will become the BADDEST of the BADSITES in the eyes of the cliqueistas... look for the vigorous suppression of any attempt to link to or refer to it.

I half-expect for someone in the Wikimafia to try to convince Blogger to yank the blog.