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 <pet...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote: > In-Reply-To: <2224b9fe-c1a6-4ef0-98b3-c0cd5ae53...@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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > wikimediau...@wikimedia.org > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
