Agreed completely with what Happy Melon is saying,
I am in complete disagreement with what Peter suggests: that somehow admins, arbitrators, and high profile editors are less covered by Wikipedia's norms and polices on pseudonymous editing then regular editors. There are some exceptions (for example, the Wikimedia Foundation Office requires information to validate that a person is of legal age to receive confidential information), however, those exceptions are rare and extremely limited (the information is not kept on file, but verified and then destroyed)
Peter: If you are in disagreement with the policy, that's fine. You're allowed to be wrong. However, if it turns into active and flagrant violation of those policies (as Peter Damian has done), that is a completely different kettle of fish. I am not a member of WMUK (something about being 3300 or so miles from the UK.. small detail), but as an interested onlooker, and one regularly outed on other sites, I feel that it is a good thing that you are not an administrator, as I would actively oppose any such RfA.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Happy Melon
<happy.melon.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
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?
--HMOn 10 January 2012 01:50, Peter Cohen
<peterc@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
In-Reply-To: <2224B9FE-C1A6-4EF0-98B3-C0CD5AE53D64@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
_______________________________________________
Functionaries-en mailing list
Functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/functionaries-en
_______________________________________________
Functionaries-en mailing list
Functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/functionaries-en