Can an Arbcom List Subscriber Lawfully Publish its Entirety?

[Triptych]

Hypothetically, would it be legal for a subscriber to openly publish the entire contents of the Arbcom mailing list?

I'm not saying anyone's planning a sleeper agent, it'd take a long time to get him or her through the RFA and election and so forth. Though maybe it could be done with a "clerk?" Neither say I that there's already already a sleeper on the list, though I'd suppose it's possible for some non-sleeper there to succumb to his or her conscience.

A websearch told me that U.S. law furnishes the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). I cursorily scanned what looks like an applicable portion of it: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2701. "Whoever ... intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided ... and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage in such system shall be punished..." But you'll note that list subscribers are "authorized," so it seems to me this portion wouldn't apply.

There the criminal portion of the ECPA and then the civil part of it (someone sues you). As to the civil side, I think, again at first glance, it's focused on the privacy question, you for example can sue some jerk that gets into your private email assuming you can show damages. But the Arbcom list is not really "privacy," I mean you send private messages to your lover or family, you don't send them to a list. Plus most of the list are pseudonymous only. They wouldn't have standing to sue, one has to be an actual person. There's an attenuated privacy argument that could possibly be made: some non-list person that is discussed on or has provided private information to the list could possibly sue. However I don't think real name or IP address are "privacy," though certainly many of us, even some of the well-intentioned among us, wish to protect them. There could possibly be some other sort of private information on third parties on the list. Separately, if a person has voluntarily provided private information to someone, or in this case a list, my sense is that the *recipient* is not bound to non-disclosure by law (maybe by decency) , only *someone else* improperly getting into your stuff. Say in a poorly thought out moment, you confess to your girlfriend via email that you're HIV-positive or that you're addicted to crack cocaine or spent an extended period in an insane asylum in your twenties, she can scream it to the treetops, even forward it to the Huffington Post. But if some creepy sysop or identifiable hacker is reading your mail, and is further asinine enough to publish it or forward it to another to be published, so you could sue him. That would not be the case here, I'm talking about an Arbcom list subscriber. He or she could possibly minimize the risk yet further by redacting the published content by name, IP, physical address, or certainly any private discussion specifics whose release would shock his or her conscience. It'd take some work. I checked if Notepad's "replace" function could replace IPs by entering descriptors "*.*.*.*" and "[IP redacted]" couldn't make it work.

Assuming anyone's actually following this ramble, here's another kicker: I don't see ECPA applying to a list-subscriber that *anonymously* publishes the list. If you're entitled to publish, what disentitles you to anonymously publish? And of course I'm only referring to ECPA here, those bound by laws of other countries, you're on your own. ...It could possibly come into play what country's "electronic facility" physically hosts the email list's contents.

Looking at it from the opposite side of an non-subscriber getting into the mailing list and publishing it, well then yeah there's criminal violation under ECPA. You'd be a fool to do it. I started mulling this over when, not looking for it, I came across this "interface page" for the list (https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/lis ... appeals-en, see bottom) and I thought, not really knowing, "who does stuff this way," and "Gmail lists function like this?" and "what if one of the arbs sets password to 'wikipedia' or 'password123' I mean they're idiots." And then "am I looking at an honeypot?" "No that'd be underhanded." Wait for it...

[IRWolfie-]

An email is protected by copyright law, and copyrighting infringement can be a criminal offence.

[greybeard]

This is a complex question that cannot easily be answered in the abstract. Much depends on factors that we (I) do not know, one in particular: how many people are on the Arbcom mailing list? How are they added, and how are they removed?

The presumption of confidentiality is fairly easily broken. With too many people on a mailing list it is fairly easy to make the claim that it was never really a secret to begin with. This, by the way, would be a defense in a litigation. There is likely no way to ensure that one doesn't get sued, as it is generally the case (in the US anyway) that anyone can sue anyone else for anything.

As to criminal liability, I think that is far-fetched. Arbcom is not a formal organization, is not a corporation, and has no explicit standing. No individual member is likely to have standing for the list as a whole, though they might sue for copyright infringement on their own contributions. However, with a lack of commercial use, damages here would be difficult to obtain.

In short, because there is no commercial value, because there is no formal organization involved, and because -- really -- no one outside of Wikipedia really gives a shit, I think the probability of legal action, either criminal or civil, for publishing this sort of mailing list would be vanishingly small.

(I am not a lawyer, but I pay several very good ones.)

[Moonage Daydream]

An email is protected by copyright law, and copyrighting infringement can be a criminal offence.

Is that your final answer?

[IRWolfie-]

An email is protected by copyright law, and copyrighting infringement can be a criminal offence.

Is that your final answer?

No, I'm raising it as a possible issue. The question is "Can an Arbcom List Subscriber Lawfully Publish its Entirety?", and they can't without permission of the respective copyright holders, and the fair use clause would be inappropriate considering it only allows limited use of a work (presuming the jurisdiction would be the United States). Since I'm not a lawyer I won't have a final answer.

[Sweet Revenge]

It seems likely that the publisher would have no liability in the US given the fact that it's generally not even against the law here to publish illegally obtained, government-classified documents, only to illegally obtain them in the first place. What liability the leaker might have, I don't know. It strikes me that it would be better for the leaker to let someone else do the publishing. Also, I don't think it's necessarily a good idea to plan one's life around free legal advice from random posters to an internet forum.

[Randy from Boise]

Hypothetically, would it be legal for a subscriber to openly publish the entire contents of the Arbcom mailing list?

No.

Copyright automatically resides with each individual author.


tim


A couple provisos: You said publish and entire contents.

Quotations, partial contents, etc. may be protected under the doctrine of fair use.

As mentioned above, best to consult a real attorney if you're actually contemplating doing something like this.

[TungstenCarbide]

It seems likely that the publisher would have no liability in the US given the fact that it's generally not even against the law here to publish illegally obtained, government-classified documents, only to illegally obtain them in the first place.

the US Federal Government is prohibited by law from claiming copyright, in most cases.

What liability the leaker might have, I don't know. It strikes me that it would be better for the leaker to let someone else do the publishing. Also, I don't think it's necessarily a good idea to plan one's life around free legal advice from random posters to an internet forum.

Publishing the arbcom list archives would be a copyright violation of the copyright owerners (the arbitrators). Fair use might apply if there is no economic impact an it's for a scholarly purpose.

Do arbitrators sign a confidentiality contract

[Sweet Revenge]

It seems likely that the publisher would have no liability in the US given the fact that it's generally not even against the law here to publish illegally obtained, government-classified documents, only to illegally obtain them in the first place.

the US Federal Government is prohibited by law from claiming copyright, in most cases.

You're right, of course. Another great idea down the tubes!

[Sweet Revenge]

OK, here's my final answer! Any emails from the ARBCOM mailing list would be prima facie parodies of themselves, and therefore publishable in full as fair use...

[Michaeldsuarez]

Pass leaks to a website that publish leaks:

http://leakdirectory.wikispaces.com/

Although I not sure if such websites cares about Wikipedia-related leaks.

What's Wikipediocracy's policy on using Wikipediocracy to host leaked documents? The Wikipedia Review hosts some leaks. Perhaps a person with access to documents could contact Zoloft or some other trusted user and have them publish the material.

I'm a sysop on Encyclopedia Dramatica, so if someone wants me to publish leaked documents on Encyclopedia Dramatica, I might be willing to help.

[Zoloft]

Pass leaks to a website that publish leaks:

http://leakdirectory.wikispaces.com/

Although I not sure if such websites cares about Wikipedia-related leaks.

What's Wikipediocracy's policy on using Wikipediocracy to host leaked documents? The Wikipedia Review hosts some leaks. Perhaps a person with access to documents could contact Zoloft or some other trusted user and have them publish the material.

I'm a sysop on Encyclopedia Dramatica, so if someone wants me to publish leaked documents on Encyclopedia Dramatica, I might be willing to help.

Folks may always contact us at support @ wikipediocracy.com but please discuss leaks, don't just email us documents of questionable legality before we've had a chance to talk.

[Triptych]

Hypothetically, would it be legal for a subscriber to openly publish the entire contents of the Arbcom mailing list?

No.

Copyright automatically resides with each individual author.

They use pseudonyms (well, there's Jimbo himself, and I guess Roger Davies?). How there ever been a legal case where a pseudonym asserted ownership of a copyright of an email (rhetorical question)? Well, sure I'd suppose author Stephen King could go and sue someone xeroxing and selling his pseudonymous Richard Bachman books, but, but, and Random House Publishing or whoever it was is going to be filling the gaps there with contracts and so forth. The arbs making use of the strictly pseudonymous accounts would first have to first have to successfully assert ownership of their pseudonyms and then engage in what's sounding increasingly a silly and Quixotic and perhaps ermm, frivolous quest to engage in a copyright lawsuit for a release that's not economically affecting them and the releaser isn't making a dime. And who's going to be willing to represent them? <snark> Maybe they could borrow some WMF lawyers. </snark>

You're right though, my opening question was broadly and absolutely stated, is it entirely lawful in every sense. Didn't leave wiggle room for far-fetched and "you gotta be kidding me" scenarios.

To whomever here said to a potential releaser, paraphrase, "as a matter of potential liability, it'd be foolish to rely on opinions provided by essentially random people on an essentially random web-forum," well that is certainly true. He or she could possibly find pointers to issues he or she feels comfortable researching himself or herself though.

[Sweet Revenge]

To whomever here said to a potential releaser, paraphrase, "as a matter of potential liability, it'd be foolish to rely on opinions provided by essentially random people on an essentially random web-forum," well that is certainly true. He or she could possibly find pointers to issues he or she feels comfortable researching himself or herself though.

That was me, and that's a fair paraphrase and a fair point. It might also be interesting to talk to Ken White of Popehat.com, who organizes and does himself a lot of pro bono work for bloggers involving first amendment issues (see tag: Popehat signal). Uncolorable copyright claims are a favorite tool, of course, to harass people who publish embarrassing things. He's a smart guy, he actually is a lawyer, and he's quite approachable I've found. If nothing else, he could probably help after a court filing should it come to that.

[Volunteer Marek]

Dude, is there a leak or no?

[Sweet Revenge]

Dude, is there a leak or no?

You don't care for fly-fishing, do you?

[Volunteer Marek]

Dude, is there a leak or no?

You don't care for fly-fishing, do you?

Only if you're doing it in the suitable spot.

[lilburne]

What was the final result of the Hubardistas suing everyone for copyright infringement? You may find the Gerrard, Cirt, Prioryman, and Godwin and EFF mates have already settled the issues.

[Anroth]

The standard is the same as for one-to-one communication or email. You can own it, collect it, sell it even. But to publish more than quotes/summary (allowed under fair use) you need the permission of the author (who retains copyright unless released). With a mailing list you need the permission of all of the authors included in the parts you want to publish.

You can freely say whats in it of course. And who said what. Just summarise.

[Vigilant]

This is a philosophical question.

In real life, the question should be, "How much real trouble could I get into for publishing this email trove?"

The answer is "effectively none".

None of these guys have the wealth to go after someone over something like this.
None of them want to be unmasked or go through discovery.
They are fairly powerless dweebs or they wouldn't have, as their pinnacle of secular authority, membership on a petty dictatorship.

Publish away.

[Randy from Boise]

This is a philosophical question.

In real life, the question should be, "How much real trouble could I get into for publishing this email trove?"

The answer is "effectively none".

None of these guys have the wealth to go after someone over something like this.
None of them want to be unmasked or go through discovery.
They are fairly powerless dweebs or they wouldn't have, as their pinnacle of secular authority, membership on a petty dictatorship.

Publish away.

Of course, that wasn't the question at the top.

In general: you are correct, especially if one were to exercise a bit of discretion in the execution.

Having a purpose bigger than "I just want to make life hard for them" and keeping things non-commercial are also important facets.

RfB

[Wer900]

This is a philosophical question.

In real life, the question should be, "How much real trouble could I get into for publishing this email trove?"

The answer is "effectively none".

None of these guys have the wealth to go after someone over something like this.
None of them want to be unmasked or go through discovery.
They are fairly powerless dweebs or they wouldn't have, as their pinnacle of secular authority, membership on a petty dictatorship.

Publish away.

What if the WMF provides financial assistance for legal purposes to those whose membership is revealed? The WMF certainly has the wealth to go after, and given that many members of the list are friends of Jimbo they would be willing.

[Vigilant]

This is a philosophical question.

In real life, the question should be, "How much real trouble could I get into for publishing this email trove?"

The answer is "effectively none".

None of these guys have the wealth to go after someone over something like this.
None of them want to be unmasked or go through discovery.
They are fairly powerless dweebs or they wouldn't have, as their pinnacle of secular authority, membership on a petty dictatorship.

Publish away.

What if the WMF provides financial assistance for legal purposes to those whose membership is revealed? The WMF certainly has the wealth to go after, and given that many members of the list are friends of Jimbo they would be willing.

I, for one, would welcome the WMF into this arena with open arms.
I would have my lawyer join them to the lawsuit and then go to town with discovery.
There's absolutely no way the WMF wants to be compelled to open their records up to court ordered discovery.

[Cla68]

The last time that ArbCom emails were revealed there weren't any bombshells. IMO, they mainly just showed that ArbCom's deliberative processes were poorly organized and that there was no effective leader stepping up and guiding them through their group problem solving. It would be interesting to see if anything has changed.

[Triptych]

The last time that ArbCom emails were revealed there weren't any bombshells. IMO, they mainly just showed that ArbCom's deliberative processes were poorly organized and that there was no effective leader stepping up and guiding them through their group problem solving. It would be interesting to see if anything has changed.

Perhaps a dominant virtual personality with a couple or three reflexive followers has emerged, and the old group is either scattering, going along, or failing to come to terms with it.

[SirFozzie]

I would doubt it.

No, there was no confidentiality clause during my term, and considering that I was on the mailing list with the new folks up until the day when my term expired and didn't see anything like that, I find it very unlikely that there is one on the current team.

The reason for "no effective leader" is, as I've explained, the fact that arbs are scattered all over the world, so everything happens at different times, and for there to be an effective leader, they'd need to be able to work on the list 24-7-365, which is pretty much impossible.

[Cla68]

The reason for "no effective leader" is, as I've explained, the fact that arbs are scattered all over the world, so everything happens at different times, and for there to be an effective leader, they'd need to be able to work on the list 24-7-365, which is pretty much impossible.

It depends on what you mean by a "leader". I mean it as someone who organizes the investigative process and defines the scope for each case, identifies key issues, assigns tasks and deadlines under those key issues, and then guides the resulting discussion towards a decision. This does not need someone to be available 24/7 to get done as most project managers should be able to confirm. I did not see anyone attempting to do any of this to any great extent in the previous release of ArbCom emails.

[EricBarbour]

There's absolutely no way the WMF wants to be compelled to open their records up to court ordered discovery.

Nothing would cheer me up more than to see the nits of New Montgomery get a subpoena, signed by an actual judge, demanding "everything".

[Wer900]

There's absolutely no way the WMF wants to be compelled to open their records up to court ordered discovery.

Nothing would cheer me up more than to see the nits of New Montgomery get a subpoena, signed by an actual judge, demanding "everything".

All records incriminating ushave beenmoved away destroyed to protect the right to corruption privacy of the innocent friends of Jimbo.

[Vigilant]

The reason for "no effective leader" is, as I've explained, the fact that arbs are scattered all over the world, so everything happens at different times, and for there to be an effective leader, they'd need to be able to work on the list 24-7-365, which is pretty much impossible.

It depends on what you mean by a "leader". I mean it as someone who organizes the investigative process and defines the scope for each case, identifies key issues, assigns tasks and deadlines under those key issues, and then guides the resulting discussion towards a decision. This does not need someone to be available 24/7 to get done as most project managers should be able to confirm. I did not see anyone attempting to do any of this to any great extent in the previous release of ArbCom emails.

There are no effective leaders because the members (HA!) of this elite board are chosen in a way that makes middle school class president elections look serious by comparison.

ARBCOM elections are nothing but popularity contests.

Candidates are not vetted.
They merely have to mouth the tiresome clichés.

[Vigilant]

There's absolutely no way the WMF wants to be compelled to open their records up to court ordered discovery.

Nothing would cheer me up more than to see the nits of New Montgomery get a subpoena, signed by an actual judge, demanding "everything".

All records incriminating ushave beenmoved away destroyed to protect the right to corruption privacy of the innocent friends of Jimbo.

That would be a serious mistake.
Contempt of court/obstruction of justice is one of those, "Do not pass go, do not collect $200" type of mistakes.

[SirFozzie]

The reason for "no effective leader" is, as I've explained, the fact that arbs are scattered all over the world, so everything happens at different times, and for there to be an effective leader, they'd need to be able to work on the list 24-7-365, which is pretty much impossible.

It depends on what you mean by a "leader". I mean it as someone who organizes the investigative process and defines the scope for each case, identifies key issues, assigns tasks and deadlines under those key issues, and then guides the resulting discussion towards a decision. This does not need someone to be available 24/7 to get done as most project managers should be able to confirm. I did not see anyone attempting to do any of this to any great extent in the previous release of ArbCom emails.

Well, that's because it wasn't sexy enough to get information out when there was so many other things Malice (whoever they were) could post.

There were attempts at "Hey, this case is moving along, please comment so we have some idea of where we stand". We also tried weekly action reminders of the various cases, but it was like pulling teeth in a few cases.

The Committee gives a LOT of leeway to the drafter, there weren't many cases where there was a large scale revolt to what was posted. so there is a project leader for each case. Should there be one for the Committee as a whole? My opinion, no. Even with the drawbacks of having multiple voices speak for the commmittee, it's better than having one overriding voice of the Committee.

[Triptych]

The Committee gives a LOT of leeway to the drafter, there weren't many cases where there was a large scale revolt to what was posted. so there is a project leader for each case. Should there be one for the Committee as a whole? My opinion, no. Even with the drawbacks of having multiple voices speak for the commmittee, it's better than having one overriding voice of the Committee.

Sirfozzie, I appreciate your comments here as you're demonstrably one who knows what he is talking about on the matter. We've established that the legal implications of an Arbcom list subscriber openly releasing its contents are thin and arguably negligible. You've stated "there was no confidentiality clause during my term." As one who has been there, would you nevertheless regard it as betrayal?

[Anroth]

You can only betray people who trust you.

[SirFozzie]

The Committee gives a LOT of leeway to the drafter, there weren't many cases where there was a large scale revolt to what was posted. so there is a project leader for each case. Should there be one for the Committee as a whole? My opinion, no. Even with the drawbacks of having multiple voices speak for the commmittee, it's better than having one overriding voice of the Committee.

Sirfozzie, I appreciate your comments here as you're demonstrably one who knows what he is talking about on the matter. We've established that the legal implications of an Arbcom list subscriber openly releasing its contents are thin and arguably negligible. You've stated "there was no confidentiality clause during my term." As one who has been there, would you nevertheless regard it as betrayal?

My opinion? Yes, it would be a betrayal of the confidence of my fellow arbs. I said as much during the... unpleasantness that occurred in the later stages of 2012, so much so, that if my term hadn't expired (that is, I would be a returning arbitrator in 2013) and Elen had been re-elected, I would have seriously considered resigning because the community had elected someone I could not work with. I said as much to her and the Committee during our discussions of this case.

So to sorta answer the question that started the topic, it would probably be legal (or at the least, probably the odds of a successful action being taken against someone who did it would be negligible). Would I consider it a violation of the norms and ethics expected of an arbitrator? Yes. If you can't abide by the rules of the list, the correct answer is not to partake in the list (IE, resign)

[EricBarbour]

My opinion? Yes, it would be a betrayal of the confidence of my fellow arbs. I said as much during the... unpleasantness that occurred in the later stages of 2012, so much so, that if my term hadn't expired (that is, I would be a returning arbitrator in 2013) and Elen had been re-elected, I would have seriously considered resigning because the community had elected someone I could not work with. I said as much to her and the Committee during our discussions of this case.

So, just out of my own curiousity, would you say that she is:

a) A reasonable personality, but incompetent and heedless thereof;
b) Competent, but arrogant and unreasonable;
c) Incompetent AND unreasonable?

Just for background, I and PD have examined her online activities and her professional career
in some detail, and I can only state that item c) would be my personal choice. She is (IMO) the
pettiest of petty bureaucrats, and spends a great deal of time on WP because her career in
local government has been, to put it charitably, a failure.

[SirFozzie]

I'm not going to go commenting on other people's personalities, because they could do the same to me, and no one really wins when that happens.

Well, maybe the local popcorn maker and the people who enjoy Wiki-drama.

[Vigilant]

I'm not going to go commenting on other people's personalities, because they could do the same to me, and no one really wins when that happens.

Well, maybe the local popcorn maker and the people who enjoy Wiki-drama.

That's everybody here.
Spill it.

[Anroth]

I'm not going to go commenting on other people's personalities, because they could do the same to me, and no one really wins when that happens.

Well, maybe the local popcorn maker and the people who enjoy Wiki-drama.

That's everybody here.
Spill it.

Wait for me to microwave the popcorn!

[SirFozzie]

See what I mean? (grins).

I will say that I did not work as much with Elen as I did with other arbitrators (mostly based on time zones and availability to discuss issues, especially as I am/was a night owl), but there was nothing more then having a different opinion than me, up until this incident. And that's not a problem, really one of the arbs I worked with the most.. we basically clashed on EVERYTHING, and vociferously (so much so, that there were many live chats between us as we tried to hash out the issue), but at least we accepted that the other person was coming to the discussion in good faith and was willing to listen, if not perhaps change our mind.

When the mailing list issue happened, they were the one who convinced me to put my own health and happiness first instead of stepping in front of the ArbTrain once more in a vain attempt to "Stop the Insanity" by running again. I think they know how much I appreciate that now

[EricBarbour]

When the mailing list issue happened, they were the one who convinced me to put my own health and happiness first instead of stepping in front of the ArbTrain once more in a vain attempt to "Stop the Insanity" by running again. I think they know how much I appreciate that now

You were smart enough to know when to give up. Now, if only you could convince certain abuse-happy administrators,
not to mention a few thousand hopeless editing addicts, to do the same. Wikipedia would start to improve very quickly.

[HRIP7]

See what I mean? (grins).

I will say that I did not work as much with Elen as I did with other arbitrators (mostly based on time zones and availability to discuss issues, especially as I am/was a night owl), but there was nothing more then having a different opinion than me, up until this incident. And that's not a problem, really one of the arbs I worked with the most.. we basically clashed on EVERYTHING, and vociferously (so much so, that there were many live chats between us as we tried to hash out the issue), but at least we accepted that the other person was coming to the discussion in good faith and was willing to listen, if not perhaps change our mind.

When the mailing list issue happened, they were the one who convinced me to put my own health and happiness first instead of stepping in front of the ArbTrain once more in a vain attempt to "Stop the Insanity" by running again. I think they know how much I appreciate that now

If you feel happy talking about it, how many hours a day do you reckon you spent on arbcom business?

I imagine the job must have some vague similarities to working in a sewer ... What would you say was the ratio of actions that left you and your colleagues with a sense of accomplishment, versus stuff that was just depressing or a strain?

[SirFozzie]

it really depends.

I had to check my email several times a day just to keep up on any issues that would pop up. (so, say 20-30 minutes scattered through the day just to read incoming mail, even if it's not something that I needed to reply to). Then if there was an active discussion that I needed to involve myself in, maybe an hour a day in total.. and that doesn't even start on Wikipedia!

If there was an active case before the Committee, I would try to read any updates in evidence or workshop, which was inefficient, because you would have to re-read things several times over.. because there was a lot of threaded discussions. same for clarification/motions/amendments Double this for any case I was working as a drafter on, because I had to try to keep up on things.

I would say 20-25 hours a week, up to 30-35 hours during our crunch times, such as the Sophie incident, the high level arbitration cases, or the like

It was almost a second full time job.

((Sorry for the delay in the reply, I ended up back in the hospital again with leg issues, to go with swelling and dehydration. Thankfully, a family member dropped off a laptop and some chargers for the electronic devices. What, me Gadget Addict much?)

[SirFozzie]

As for the affect on the job.. you spend so much time dealing with the worst of Wikipedia, that it really got to be a drag.I know that in some cases I got frustrated with a topic area that continually reappeared that I suggested on the list.

"This is just based on my frustration with seeing yet another issue raised up.. but could we get away with passing a rule that anyone who's made more than X edits on these articles is topic banned? Or would that just apply quick-growth to the next generation to argue endlessly about this issue?"

As I said, it was not serious.. but it would have been interesting to see what would have happened if others debated it?

[Vigilant]

As for the affect on the job.. you spend so much time dealing with the worst of Wikipedia, that it really got to be a drag.I know that in some cases I got frustrated with a topic area that continually reappeared that I suggested on the list.

"This is just based on my frustration with seeing yet another issue raised up.. but could we get away with passing a rule that anyone who's made more than X edits on these articles is topic banned? Or would that just apply quick-growth to the next generation to argue endlessly about this issue?"

As I said, it was not serious.. but it would have been interesting to see what would have happened if others debated it?

I've got a lot of respect for how you handled most of the cases I followed.

Having said that, you guys never solved any problems.
You just kicked the can down the road.

People got timeouts and then almost always returned to the problem area.
You blocked/banned people and the next sockpuppet was going before the previous account was cool.
You imposed interaction bans that were routinely gamed to fuck with one side or the other.

You never fixed anything.
You took too long to come to a decision.
You did much of the work in a non transparent manner.
There was the very strong appearance of favoritism in several of the decisions.

[EricBarbour]

I would say 20-25 hours a week, up to 30-35 hours during our crunch times, such as the Sophie incident, the high level arbitration cases, or the like
It was almost a second full time job.

And what was your reward? A few grudging thank-yous after leaving, I suppose.

Did you know the average American garbageman makes $65k/year? You were one of Wikipedia's garbagemen, and they
didn't even give you a free laptop. Or a handshake, or a cheap gold watch. I'm surprised you aren't more disgruntled than
you are, most people would be.

[SirFozzie]

To be honest, my personal thoughts mirrored yours at some junctures, but you have to get 8 or more people to agree on drastic actions, and that's never easy. To make things worse, I never really wanted to see an 8-7 vote with drastic measures.. because then the folks who are on the bad side of it will endlessly argue to reverse it via clarification/amendment.

It's the art of the possible, and I was only 6.5% of the committee.

[SirFozzie]

I would say 20-25 hours a week, up to 30-35 hours during our crunch times, such as the Sophie incident, the high level arbitration cases, or the like
It was almost a second full time job.

And what was your reward? A few grudging thank-yous after leaving, I suppose.

Did you know the average American garbageman makes $65k/year? You were one of Wikipedia's garbagemen, and they
didn't even give you a free laptop. Or a handshake, or a cheap gold watch. I'm surprised you aren't more disgruntled than
you are, most people would be.

Well, only a fool volunteers, as the saying goes...

despite the frustrations, the endless arguments, and the bad sides of it, I still am glad I did it.. Would I do it again? Probably not.. we're halfway through 2013, and I've had no "gee, you could run again.." twinges.

A lot of it goes to the two types of folks who post at sites like these. THere are folks with varying levels of "The core of Wikipedia is good, but there are things that need to be changed" And then there's the "The core idea is beyond salvage, and attempts to fix it are worthy of ridicule".

I fall into the former camp.

[Volunteer Marek]

Did you know the average American garbageman makes $65k/year?

Ok, off topic, but the economist in me has to say "citation needed".

I'm asking based on some background knowledge but a quick look out there http://www.ehow.com/info_7736611_averag ... alary.html says 30k for median, 43k for average (yes, there's income inequality among garbage-men too)

[Poetlister]

Did you know the average American garbageman makes $65k/year?

Ok, off topic, but the economist in me has to say "citation needed".

I'm asking based on some background knowledge but a quick look out there http://www.ehow.com/info_7736611_averag ... alary.html says 30k for median, 43k for average (yes, there's income inequality among garbage-men too)

The figures quoted are for average garbage collectors, not garbage-men! Hypothetically, if the great majority of collectors were women and men earned far more than women, it might be possible to reconcile the figures. That does seem unlikely, though. Another possibility is that garbage-men are earning huge sums on the side by demanding Christmas tips and selling valuable items they find in the garbage; these earnings would not be in the official figures. But all this is off-topic.