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? 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.