[WikiEN-l] Because they can: why dictators, totalitarians, and abusive admins do what they do

Tue Apr 10 20:14:11 UTC 2007

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 at 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 at 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 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Not getting into it, but why didn't this message come with [WikiEN-l]?
> > >
> > > On 10/04/07, Parker Peters <parkerpeters1002 at 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
> > > >
> necessary<http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com/3130.html>to
> 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -george william herbert
> > george.herbert at gmail.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> ====
> Parker Peters
> http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com

-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com