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

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.



On 10 January 2012 17:16, HJ Mitchell <> 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 <>
> *To:*;
> *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 <> wrote:
> > In-Reply-To: <>
> > 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
> >
> >
> > WMUK:
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
Wikimedia UK mailing list

Reply via email to