On 1/22/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
wrote:
The privacy of arbcom deliberation has a
completely different basis.
They are not about establishing policy, but about the private issues of
individual Wikipedians. It would not surprise me to hear that in those
heated circumstances the participants do not pay much attention to
whether their own statements are defamatory.
As someone who occasionally sorts through the Foundation's email, a
lot of that deals with the private issues of individuals (Wikipedians
or otherwise).
I suspect the real solution to this is for there to be two lists, one
for debating policy (noisy, public) and one for dealing with real
problems (private). Danny can use the second list to feed action
items from the Foundation to responsible administrators to deal with
them in a responsible and discreet manner.
It looks like he got off on the wrong foot on this. Discretion is not
been a prominent criterion for elevation to admin status. A person in
Danny's position needs to be able to evaluate the capacity of an
individual (who may or may not be an admin) to be discrete. He also
needs to be able to decide who is best capable of handling a specific
question.
Ec