The reasoning completely necessitates the purging - we had a number of people who'd joined the list instead of just sending us unblock requests. We'd seen the one major incident with info leaking in what became an arbcom case, we'd also seen a number of people who joined the list under questionable circumstances start to reply to other people sending in new requests, some of those replies not being accurate or helpful.
I'm not clear what you mean by:
nor does it necessitate the amazingly harsh setup in which even those who come in good faith can't see the responses to their own messages.
...are you referring to the fact that unblock-en-l list members can have private discussions in response to a request, without copying the requestor? Or are you referring to the slightly broken email reply-to which leads a lot of us to accidentally reply just to the list and not copy the requestor on responses? The latter is just a list setup bug; if anyone can figure out how to fix the reply-to right we'd love to fix it. The former... Well, ok, someone could see it in a paranoid light, but most of what happens is just boring.
As I said, anyone who thinks we need more oversight is welcome to propose more oversight. So far, we haven't had any "you need more oversight" complaints - we've had complaints when we cleaned up the list, but I think most of the cleanup was pretty black or white situations, not a lot of grey.
If Wikipedia critics like Parker (or Brandt, or anyone else) really feel strongly about this, propose someone to join the list who we can all believe will respect private personal info in a responsible adult manner, to keep an eye on things.
Marc Riddell, who's not particularly a WP insider (and I don't think is an admin), is in the process of coming on board now. I think he's getting the emails as of a couple of days ago. He might be someone the critics would believe and trust.
If you particularly want someone else, propose them. It needs to be someone that *we* can trust with private info too, but if there exists a mutually agreeable candidate I have no problems with them being there.
You could have asked us if we were willing to have some sort of oversight review before you acused us of rejecting it, and avoided a silly, nasty argument. 8-)
-george
On 4/10/07, Parker Peters parkerpeters1002@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, George. I just send them in the same way as always.
If you really claim that's the reason unblock-en-l is locked down, I call foul. That reasoning doesn't necessitate the "purging" you did a while back, nor does it necessitate the amazingly harsh setup in which even those who come in good faith can't see the responses to their own messages.
It's a fraud, and you know it.
Parker
On 4/10/07, George Herbert <george.herbert@gmail.com > wrote:
It may have been mailed to a bunch of list members directly, with faked header info looking like it was sent via lists.wikimedia.org. The headers and footer are wrong-looking.
I read my wikien-l at gmail, which isn't showing me the true whole headers, but someone who got the whole headers of the message could figure out where it was injected.
I don't particularly mind, but it is sort of silly.
Also silly and a bit pathetic is the rant about unblock-en-l. It went private because people were sending detailed identifying info to the list, and the Foundation's policies for protecting personal info details required it. We had detailed personal info leak from one party in what became an Arbcom case to another party in that Arbcom case by joining Unblock-en-l when it was unmoderated. The party whose personal info was out there claimed phone and work harrassment later followed, though we don't know that the info came via that particular leak or have verification of the claimed harrassment.
This sort of information leak is intolerable for any organization that cares about personal privacy. Parker, how would you feel if what had leaked was your home phone number, address, and employer's contact information?
The list is not closed and locked down to any outside oversight. It's just not freely open in an unrestricted manner now. If anyone has serious questions about oversight or review of unblock-en-l activities, propose an oversight mechanism. Just be aware that the oversight mechanism will have to work with the privacy mechanism.
The complaint about unblock-en-l also betrays a serious misunderstanding of what the role is of unblock-en-l. We're there as one of several appeals mechanisms. Others include email to the blocking admin, email to any other admin who will listen, posting an unblock request template on your talk page, filing a request with Arbcom, or ultimately going to the Foundation or OTRS. Unblock-en-L can't and has no authority to override and keep blocked anyone who successfully appeals via another mode, and we certainly aren't the only way to appeal something. We're just one way to get ahold of people who are real human beings, will take a look at a situation if asked, and will assist if we think it's needed. There is no special power - I was active on unblock-en-L for many months before becoming an admin, using nothing more than the powers of research, reasonable discussion, and persuasion where I found a block that I thought might be questionable.
-george
On 4/10/07, Gary Kirk gary.kirk@gmail.com wrote:
Not getting into it, but why didn't this message come with [WikiEN-l]?
On 10/04/07, Parker Peters parkerpeters1002@gmail.com wrote:
A new entry for you to read, and enjoy.
Perhaps you will find enlightened, depending on how corrupt a
wikipedian you
are.
The more corrupt will dismiss it out of hand, of course.
http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com
the "Unblock-en-l" list, which was supposedly created to allow a new
avenue
for people to seek unblock (once people on wikien-l got tired of
people
asking for unblock there), has been Completely Closed Off. The
archives are
no longer public record. Nobody is allowed to subscribe, save for
those who
are in the "good graces" of a certain group of abusive administrators already. Anyone can submit an email to it, but until such time as they
see
an email back, they cannot see the discussion surrounding them, or the behavior of those inside the group.
I can tell you why this is. It is simply because the Unblock-en-l
group is a
*total and utter fraud.* It was never intended, and has never been
intended,
that it be a legitimate place for legitimate users to get unblocked.
Rather,
it's yet another rubber-stamp on the lies and deception
necessaryhttp://parkerpeters.livejournal.com/3130.htmlto keep anyone
who page-owning administrators and interest groups feel might one day be part of a consensus against their particular point of view,
out.
--
Parker Peters http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com
-- Gary Kirk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
--
==== Parker Peters http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com