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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

As someone who does attend real life events and who does edit under a pseudonym, I'm rather grateful for those who've spoken up and are aware of this issue. It's more than one issue, of course. The whole area of outing editors is

Hi all, As a WMUK trustee, I'm finding this whole issue to be a serious dilemma. I'm deeply committed to the 'open to all to participate and contribute' philosophy for all of our activities, and find it very saddening that the WMUK board has been put in the position where we have to ban someone from the events we support in order for others to be able to attend them without having to be concerned about their privacy. I don't think this needs saying, but I'll say it anyway to make it absolutely clear: this was not an easy decision, nor was it a rushed one (or a 'panic measure' as was earlier suggested). A lot of thought and discussion went into this (and sadly, that thought and discussion would have otherwise been invested in our charitable activities). As one of the moderators of this list, I am very reticent to block Edward from posting here, so long as Edward's posts remain civil, logical, and without malice. This is a public mailing list, so there are no privacy concerns here. If you don't want to engage in this discussion, then please simply don't reply to it. In terms of the appeal procedure: if privacy concerns allow, then I would much prefer that if such a process takes place, that it takes place in public - either on this list or on the WMUK wiki (although Edward is banned from editing most of the WMUK wiki, he is not blocked from his user talk page so an appeal could take place there). If it can't be public due to those privacy concerns, then I would prefer if an uninvolved, neutral community member would step forward to be the adjudicator, to avoid any suggestion of prejudice. Thanks, Mike _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

This is missing the point.  This is all about a British Museum event I signed up to attend some time ago, before the UKCC thing blew up. When other involved persons signed up I had it on my 'to do' list to remove my signature, conscious of the fact that it would have been embarrassing or difficult. I would have had no problem if I had been privately contacted and the matter discreetly handled. Note my interest in the Royal manuscript collection derives from my interest in Walter Burley, who I have translated. Instead, I find my name bandied about on this public list, being accused of 'harassment' like a common thug or criminal.  I deeply resent this and I would like an apology. I have no problem with a voluntary agreement. I would like an apology, and a retraction of the accusation of 'harassment'. I don't go in for 'outing' particularly, although I think trustees and senior Wikipedians have an obligation to be publicly identifiable.  And note my earlier comments about photography - only with permission, if at all. I don't want to appeal anything. I simply want a retraction of allegations of 'on and off wiki harassment'. This has been deeply upsetting. Edward

What possible need is there to know the personal life story of a community member in order to "scrutinise" their actions on-wiki? In an environment where every action is quite deliberately laid open for transparent 'scrutiny', *precisely* to engender a culture where members are judged on their actions, not any personal characteristic? Why is it any more important that the name, birthday and home address of the admin who blocks "established editors" is known publically, than the same of the admin who 'only' blocks IPs? Why does knowing the marital status of your arbitrators help you or anyone else to "scrutinise" their behaviour? There is absolutely no justification from the "ends" of outing to justify any means. Conversely, those members of the community who *have* "got further up the hierarchy" have done so with the support and endorsement of the community which is *well aware* of their pseudonymous status, anonymous or otherwise. They have done so in line with Foundation policy, which is fully protective of that anonymity. They have done so in a *legal* environment which is sympathetic to people's right to privacy and comes down hard on people who harrass others by breaking it. The entire structure is established, with increasingly broad mandates, on the basis that pseudonymity is acceptable and to be protected. What right does any single person have to declare that establishment 'wrong' and unilaterally overturn it? Of course, I'm writing from an anonymous email account with a pseudonym that has always been in place, and probably always will. I've had things oversighted on five different projects, and removed from places where 'oversight' is far from standard practice, to protect that anonymity. Is the fact that you don't know my name, address and date of birth a concern to you? Is the fact that I've written code for the cluster, or administrated three ArbCom elections, a problem for you? Would you sleep better at night if I *hadn't* once had the Oversight bit? Please do tell me, how would your "scrutiny" of my actions be improved if my personal life was public record? --HM On 10 January 2012 01:50, Peter Cohen <peterc(a)cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote: _______________________________________________ Functionaries-en mailing list Functionaries-en(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/functionaries-en