User talk:Risker/Mailing list draft

Some questions about how to go forward
Risker, based on what I've seen at WT:ARB, I'm guessing that this draft is what you've mentioned circulating amongst the other arbs. Is that correct? If so, it sounds to me like there are differing opinions about the part about sometimes making correspondence public, the kinds of reservations that Roger recently described and other members have described in the past. Am I understanding that correctly, too? Are there any objections to sometimes releasing material that I haven't heard about at the talk page, that I might want to think about addressing by revising the wording of what I proposed?

As I've indicated in those discussions, I'm thinking that a community RfC, even if advisory, could be helpful in resolving any differences of opinion on the Committee. And I want to try to resolve that, rather than just let things drift. If I start such an RfC in the near future, do you have any strong feelings about whether it should be about the draft you wrote here, or the version that I suggested at the other talk page?

I imagine that most of what you have here is pretty uncontroversial, and it's all procedures, rather than policy. For that reason, it seems to me that, if a consensus were to be reached about what might be released from confidentiality, then adoption of everything else you've drafted here should be pretty straightforward. For that reason, if it happens that you don't object, then I might lean towards making the RfC about the version I proposed (or something like it), in order to focus on the possible policy issue.

Anyway, I'm just feeling around for the most constructive way to move the issue along. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that the ArbCom mailing list should be abolished, and discussions should take place in public, on Wikipedia. A private list has no transparency or accountability. After my own one year community ban, despite indications that I could appeal after a year, my requests were denied for 3 more additional years. No explanation, no reasons, no discussions. There should be no problems with a banned user making their request in public, which makes ArbCom perceived at been less than open about their decisions. There should be very good reasons to make a particular discussion private, but not at the expense of transparency and accountability of all the other discussions. --Iantresman (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Never going to happen. Arbitrators are always going to communicate off-wiki, whether on an official list, an unofficial list, Skype, telephone, Gchat, etc. Arbitrators communicate their personal availability via those lists, for example, and it is not the business of the world in general that Arbitrator X's father is ill or Arb Y's not in a position to draft the next case because of work commitments, or Arbitrator Z will be on vacation for two weeks. (Every police force in the world would point out how potentially risky that last one is.) Keep in mind that the only way some of the responsibilities of the committee can be handled is by off-wiki communication: specifically, ban/block appeals (the blocked/banned user has no way to contact Arbcom otherwise), Audit subcommittee (which by definition involves private information that cannot be posted onwiki without violating the privacy policy), and what can best be called "human resources" issues that also involve the private or non-public information of various users. And those are just formal committee responsibilities. Risker (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. But appeals and Arbitration cases are already carried out on Wikipedia. There is no reason why requests for ban appeals can not be carried out on Wikipedia too, after initial contact by email. Thanks anyway for the feedback. --Iantresman (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion
OK, let me make a suggestion about, well of course you know what. In the first sentence, about mail sent by an Arb, how about changing "or", in the last phrase of the sentence, to "and"? That way, there has to be agreement by a majority and by the sender(s). I cannot think of a party to the communication who would be left out by that. It's less than what I proposed, because it allows a sender to veto it, but it's a good step forward, and maybe it's acceptable to the current members. The second sentence, the proposed addendum, already limits it to where every non-arb party agrees.

And unrelated to you-know-what, I strongly encourage the Committee to adopt the points higher up, essentially about sending some kinds of business elsewhere. You folks really do need to delegate some of your current workload to other venues. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed! AGK  [•] 09:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * { I'm glad to hear it! And I hope that the Committee as a whole actually goes ahead with this. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)