Re: [Functionaries-en] Edward Buckner/Peter Damian & W

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Functionaries-en] Edward Buckner/Peter Damian & W

Peter Cohen-2
In-Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
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


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Functionaries-en] Edward Buckner/Peter Damian & W

Thomas Dalton
What makes you think everyone that attends a WMUK event is in a
high-profile role and is in a position of authority?

The trustees of WMUK are all perfectly open about their real life
identities, as it is required by law. You can go onto the Companies
House website and find out about them whether they like it or now (or
you can just go onto the WMUK website and find out even more, of
course). The same goes for the trustees and senior staff of the WMF.

This ban isn't to protect the board, it's to protect other people
attending events.

On 10 January 2012 01:50, Peter Cohen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> In-Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Functionaries-en] Edward Buckner/Peter Damian & W

Happy Melon-2
In reply to this post by Peter Cohen-2
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
In-Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/functionaries-en


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Functionaries-en] Edward Buckner/Peter Damian & W

David Yellope-2
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 <[hidden email]> 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?

--HM



On 10 January 2012 01:50, Peter Cohen <[hidden email]> wrote:
In-Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/functionaries-en


_______________________________________________
Functionaries-en mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/functionaries-en



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Edward Buckner/Peter Damian & Wikimedia UK

HJ Mitchell
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
As somebody who has nevwer been an arbitrator, functionary, or board member, and as somebody whose real-life identity is on his userpage for all to see, I thought I'd just chime in that I agree completely with Anthony and Richard.
 
I have personally spoken to at least two respected members of the Wikipedia community who are members of WMUK who have told me that they feel uncomfortable attending events at which Edward Buckner/Peter Damian is present because he has attempted or might attempt to "out" them, such as by posting photographs of them on the Internet or by publishing the real names of some of those who edit under pseudonyms (and many editors use pseudonyms because they have good reason not to want their real life job or identity etc associated with their Wikipedia username).
 
It is lamentable that a precedent has been set for banning a person from WMUK events, but in this case, I endorse the decision unreservedly, because people should be able to attend such events without worrying about the informationt hat migh be maliciously published about them.
 
Harry Mitchell
(User:HJ Mitchell)

From: Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Sent: Tuesday, 10 January 2012, 2:03
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Functionaries-en] Edward Buckner/Peter Damian & W

What makes you think everyone that attends a WMUK event is in a
high-profile role and is in a position of authority?

The trustees of WMUK are all perfectly open about their real life
identities, as it is required by law. You can go onto the Companies
House website and find out about them whether they like it or now (or
you can just go onto the WMUK website and find out even more, of
course). The same goes for the trustees and senior staff of the WMF.

This ban isn't to protect the board, it's to protect other people
attending events.

On 10 January 2012 01:50, Peter Cohen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> In-Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Edward Buckner/Peter Damian & Wikimedia UK

WereSpielChequers-2
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.

I'm an admin on the English Wikipedia, so to some of the trolls at WR I suppose I'm a target for outing.

As an admin I have done quite a bit of trawling userspace for attack pages, and of the more than five thousand pages I've deleted quite a large proportion have been attack pages. Not surprisingly I've had quite a bit of abuse up to and including death threats from the people I've thereby annoyed.

As a regular at GLAM and other events I'm aware that there is a risk that at some point I will be "outed" deliberately or by accident, and so I've switched my focus to other less contentious areas of editing. 

But the longer I can putoff the day when someone links my userid and my real life identity the safer I will feel.

I'm not suggesting that only those who've had death threats via their Wikipedia account should decide on the risk we as a chapter take about the outing of fellow editors. But I would appreciate it if people bore that sort of concern in mind when they contemplated welcoming to our meetings those who want to out editors.

Regards

WereSpielChequers

On 10 January 2012 17:16, HJ Mitchell <[hidden email]> wrote:
As somebody who has nevwer been an arbitrator, functionary, or board member, and as somebody whose real-life identity is on his userpage for all to see, I thought I'd just chime in that I agree completely with Anthony and Richard.
 
I have personally spoken to at least two respected members of the Wikipedia community who are members of WMUK who have told me that they feel uncomfortable attending events at which Edward Buckner/Peter Damian is present because he has attempted or might attempt to "out" them, such as by posting photographs of them on the Internet or by publishing the real names of some of those who edit under pseudonyms (and many editors use pseudonyms because they have good reason not to want their real life job or identity etc associated with their Wikipedia username).
 
It is lamentable that a precedent has been set for banning a person from WMUK events, but in this case, I endorse the decision unreservedly, because people should be able to attend such events without worrying about the informationt hat migh be maliciously published about them.
 
Harry Mitchell
(User:HJ Mitchell)

From: Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Sent: Tuesday, 10 January 2012, 2:03
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Functionaries-en] Edward Buckner/Peter Damian & W

What makes you think everyone that attends a WMUK event is in a
high-profile role and is in a position of authority?

The trustees of WMUK are all perfectly open about their real life
identities, as it is required by law. You can go onto the Companies
House website and find out about them whether they like it or now (or
you can just go onto the WMUK website and find out even more, of
course). The same goes for the trustees and senior staff of the WMF.

This ban isn't to protect the board, it's to protect other people
attending events.

On 10 January 2012 01:50, Peter Cohen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Edward Buckner/Peter Damian & Wikimedia UK

Charles Matthews


On 10 January 2012 19:05, WereSpielChequers <[hidden email]> wrote:
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 "toxic" in the ArbCom-jargon sense: in other words the community of enWP dumps it into the lap of a few trusties, so that _it does not have to be discussed on a public mailing list_, amongst other things. I would question whether anyone who has not thought through the implications should be giving opinions on such a list.  If anyone thinks that the "natural justice" issue is trivial, or that barring individuals deemed persona grata actually solves the outing problem rather than driving it to more covert methods, they (frankly) have no idea what they are talking about.

In short, this is a very bad topic to have one of our typical threads about. The Board presumably anticipated an appeal procedure, so they should use it, and moderate this list.

Charles

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Edward Buckner/Peter Damian & Wikimedia UK

Michael Peel-4
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
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Edward Buckner/Peter Damian & Wikimedia UK

Richard Symonds-2
Regarding my previous email (in which I may have inadvertently contradicted Mike!), please defer to his views on this over mine.

Richard

On 10 January 2012 21:16, Michael Peel <[hidden email]> wrote:
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
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Edward Buckner/Peter Damian & Wikimedia UK

Edward at Logic Museum
In reply to this post by Michael Peel-4
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.

>>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

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


----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Peel" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Edward Buckner/Peter Damian & Wikimedia UK


> 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
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org 


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Edward Buckner/Peter Damian & Wikimedia UK

michael west-3
On 10 January 2012 22:21, Edward at Logic Museum <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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.
>
>>>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
>
> 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
>

Seriously this thing is both worrying and casts the whole WMUK in a
vindictive light. I see no need for a public statement to be issued.
Wikepedians do fall out but why publicize allegations which have never
been reported to outside authorities, either all of you have lost your
minds or spat will escalates in an expensive court case. I'm confused
and flabbergasted.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org