What makes you think everyone that attends a WMUK event is in a
high-profile role and is in a position of authority?
The trustees of WMUK are all perfectly open about their real life
identities, as it is required by law. You can go onto the Companies
House website and find out about them whether they like it or now (or
you can just go onto the WMUK website and find out even more, of
course). The same goes for the trustees and senior staff of the WMF.
This ban isn't to protect the board, it's to protect other people
attending events.
On 10 January 2012 01:50, Peter Cohen <peterc(a)cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
In-Reply-To:
<2224B9FE-C1A6-4EF0-98B3-C0CD5AE53D64(a)gmail.com>
Anthony,
I am just an ordinary Wikipedian. Although I have contemplated becoming an
admin in the past, I have never applied to be one and don't intend to do
so in the foreseeable future. As such, I have no obligation to acknowledge
anything about anyone.
It so happens that the Wikipedian I have probably had most contact with as
a Wikipedian is an anonymous editor and I understand enough of his
circumstances to know why it is appropriate in his case. I am not going to
out him or other ordinary editors or admins who focus on using the brush
end of the broom. However, the higher someone gets up the hierarchy the
less appropriate it is for someone to be granted anonymity.
When someone is active in AE or has an extensive history of using blocks
against established editors, then the right to privacy becomes
questionable. Wikipedia isn't just a private club. It is one of the most
powerful websites in the world.
Arbitrators, senior Foundation staff and directors of WMUK and the like
are in positions of authority over that website and it is entirely
appropriate that they should be scrutinised publcly.
I don't know as much about Buckner as you do. Maybe I would be horrified
by him if I did. But I'm not going to accept that everyone in high-profile
roles should be above external scrutiny. And actually it's surprising how
restrained people are being. As far as I know, no one seems to have gone
to Private Eye.
Peter
Peter,
The additional issues with Buckner, who routinely tries to uncover
the identity of Wikipedians who are in high-profile roles, mean it
is quite appropriate to ban him from these events.
Nobody said he was a "security risk", but it is the case that he
has caused stress among many editors for no other reason than that
he can. A subset of these editors have resigned because of
Buckner/Damian. He should not be welcome at WMUK events because of
his behaviour, period. It astounds me that you don't acknowledge
the ongoing issues with this man's actions.
Anthony
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK:
http://uk.wikimedia.org