Firstly, this is my own view, not that of the chapter's. That said, I do have a bit of inside knowledge from both the chapter and my time on ArbCom, which I've drawn on to some degree here.

-- AGK and Charles Matthews, as well as a few others, will be well aware of the full history - but in short, Tom and AGK are right when they say that security is a reference to outing and harassment.

Buckner attending events was something that several members and UK-based Wikimedians did contact us about, and he was banned not because he's criticising us, but because we can't trust him to keep the identities of our members secret when our members ask to remain anonymous. Neither is it a knee-jerk reaction to Peter Cohen's (or Buckner's) letter: the decision to ban was taken a while ago, but was only made public today. The timing is a coincidence.

As to 'safety', people's physical safety is not in question - but their privacy is. Being forcibly 'outed' is a traumatic experience for anyone. Many of you know that we have editors - and members - who wish to remain anonymous, for good reason. Some are under 18. Several would lose their jobs if they were outed - and once the information is public, it's very, very difficult to remove it. Given Buckner's past history, it's clear that he cannot be trusted with keeping the identities of those whom he meets secret. We have a duty to our members to make sure that they feel safe and welcome at real-life events, and several people have stated to us that they simply wouldn't feel safe or welcome at the same event as Dr Buckner.

Peter (or anyone else): if you would like to meet me at some point in the future, I will take you through Buckner's history on-wiki, and the reasons he was banned from Wikipedia. I will also happily take you through some of my own experiences of being (incorrectly) outed on Wikipedia Review, including the real life repercussions on me, my family, and my job.

Finally, I know that some people share the same concerns as Buckner about our charitable status, but we welcome constructive criticism of what we're doing. That's how Wikipedia works, after all - discussion. Several Wikipedia Review members have been in touch with us, politely and openly, with their concerns - most of them have done so on-wiki. Those people have not been banned, and will not be banned as long as they're polite, honest, and open. But what is not acceptable is creating an atmosphere in which people feel unable to attend real-life events or contribute to the projects because of the actions of a single person. Having such a suspicious atmosphere damages our goal of 'free knowledge for all', and makes it very difficult to have inclusive events that anyone can attend.

Richard Symonds

-----Original Message----- From: wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton Sent: 09 January 2012 23:45 To: peterc@cix.compulink.co.uk; wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Edward Buckner/Peter Damian & Wikimedia UK

On 9 January 2012 23:34, Peter Cohen peterc@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:

In-Reply-To: 003b01cccecb$72bcf1d0$5836d570$@wikimedia.org.uk Excuse me but is the board really saying that Dr Buckner is a security risk? That makes him sound like an axe murderer or something.

As mentioned, he has a history of "outing" people. I imagine it is in that sense that he is considered a security risk (I've not discussed this decision with anyone on the board, so I'm just speculating based on what I know of the board). Some people like to keep their real life identities secret and that is a little difficult when meeting people in person. You need to be able to trust the people you are meeting.

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