Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ Bureaucracy _ Arbcom secret pages

Posted by: Peter Damian

See below. Interesting in that the previously wiki-faithful 'Pedro' (who I suspect contributed here as 'Nerd') is complaining about this. What he says is no secret, of course, why is he complaining about it? Arbcom have loads of juicy stuff. Not just the 'Liars Committee' but also the 'Blackmailers Committee'.

QUOTE
ARBCOM I have been made aware that ARBCOM hold secret pages on many admins and editors. Pages that only ARBCOM can see, and furthermore that editors, those that use an anonymous screen name, are not permitted to see nor even advised of their existence. This Big Brother attitude worries me. So, I guess we have some options;

1) Not true - ARBCOM hold NO secret pages about editors

(I have an email from an active current ARBCOM member stating they do indeed have a page about me - so this is not a choice)
2) Part true - ARBCOM hold secret pages about editors but advise them they exist

(I have an email from an active current ARBCOM member stating they do indeed have a page about me - and I was never made aware of the existence of this page until years after it was created - so this is not a choice)
3) True - ARBCOM hold secret pages about editors but do not advise them they exist

(From my experience - certain)
I have direct evidence that ARBCOM do indeed hold secret pages. In a colaborative atmosphere (which Wikipedia is, we're assured) how is it possible that people can create records of "evidence" without even having the courtesy to make you aware they hold it? Without a single email even? Pedro : Chat 20:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pedro&oldid=424421857

Posted by: Silver seren

Is this supposed to be new information?

Posted by: taiwopanfob

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Sun 17th April 2011, 11:48am) *
Is this supposed to be new information?


The deep roots of surveillance and its ugly hand in social control was a significant reason I gave up contributing to the project(s) years ago. Maybe one day you will grow a pair and come to the same realization? Until then, your wiki-adrenaline addiction will continue to cloud whatever ethical and critical thinking you can bring to bear on these issues.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Sun 17th April 2011, 12:48pm) *

Is this supposed to be new information?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_wants_to_be_free.

Posted by: Sololol

Excellent find, Mr. Damian. And now to dig up one of these corpus delicti and see what the High People's Court of Wikipedia does in private.
I assume these are on-wiki pages and you could verify their existence by searching through the source code. There's also the private arbcom_enwiki data dumps, however you'd get a peek at those. I'm techno-Amish so I'll leave that to the pros

QUOTE(taiwopanfob @ Sun 17th April 2011, 8:24am) *

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Sun 17th April 2011, 11:48am) *
Is this supposed to be new information?


The deep roots of surveillance and its ugly hand in social control was a significant reason I gave up contributing to the project(s) years ago. Maybe one day you will grow a pair and come to the same realization? Until then, your wiki-adrenaline addiction will continue to cloud whatever ethical and critical thinking you can bring to bear on these issues.


I used to think this website was just the Sheol of banned, bitter editors and the accusations of misdeeds were exaggerated. And it may be, but there is far more truth than falsehoods. But after all of the cronyism and wrongdoing that's been documented it's difficult to imagine a sufficiently juicy scandal that would attract the attention of your average editor and provoke real reforms (whatever those would be). Perhaps if the secret pages contained extremely creepy information it would get some legs.

Posted by: radek

So.... what happens when a new person gets elected to the board? Do they have to go through some kind of ritual initiation to get access to these secret pages? Or are they actually pre-selected?

Posted by: melloden

Is anyone seeing the parallels between ArbCom and the CIA? Oh, wait, you should have seen that years ago.

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(melloden @ Sun 17th April 2011, 2:10pm) *

Is anyone seeing the parallels between ArbCom and the CIA? Oh, wait, you should have seen that years ago.


Uh, let's not get crazy. Hyperbole doesn't help.

Posted by: EricBarbour

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pedro&diff=422425658&oldid=421431137 is even more "interesting".

So, he's been getting into disputes with the Arbcom fairies. Hah.
Can't manage any sympathy. They deserve each other.

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 17th April 2011, 4:45pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pedro&diff=422425658&oldid=421431137 is even more "interesting".

So, he's been getting into disputes with the Arbcom fairies. Hah.
Can't manage any sympathy. They deserve each other.


Eh, that just makes it seem like it's just some drama queen shit combined with the Wiki-paranoia having finally reached an unstable level (the whole thing about "stated intention to desysop me" - sounds like Kamenev finally realizing that just because he helped Stalin get rid of Trotsky, didn't mean he wasn't going to be next. But he ain't Kamenev and the ArbCom ain't Stalin (hey, the other guy was comparing them to CIA, this is actually a better metaphor (in some ways, worse in others))). At this point I'm guessing that yea, the ArbCom or some of its members probably has some page or two somewhere where they collect stuff for possible future use and maybe even use it but it's probably not that much different from the fact that I occasionally open up a Notepad file and save some diffs that I think might come up in the future then promptly forget what I titled the said Notepad file and end up having to look the diffs up again when they do in fact become relevant.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Sun 17th April 2011, 12:48pm) *
Is this supposed to be new information?

It's new to me and I have been around here and there for years ... or are you just being an archtwat about it. Does it change the ethics of it either way?


WIKIPEDIA: Information should be free (except when its stuff we hold about you).


Yah, there should be a purging. Anyone having information held about them told and given the right to review it.

Posted by: Silver seren

No, what I meant was that the existence of secret Arbcom communications has been open knowledge for a while now. They deny that they do it anymore after the big fiasco a while back when someone revealed their secret communications and their bias in that situation, but we all know it's still going on.

It's one of the main reasons why so few users, even the most established ones, actually trust Arbcom.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Sun 17th April 2011, 6:12pm) *
No, what I meant was that the existence of secret Arbcom communications has been open knowledge for a while now. They deny that they do it anymore after the big fiasco a while back when someone revealed their secret communications and their bias in that situation, but we all know it's still going on.

It's one of the main reasons why so few users, even the most established ones, actually trust Arbcom.

Well, don't post it here, where most people (long ago) figured out that Arbcom is pathetic.
Post it on WP, preferably where more of their clueless users will see it. Good luck.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Sun 17th April 2011, 10:12pm) *
No, what I meant was that the existence of secret Arbcom communications has been open knowledge for a while now. They deny that they do it anymore...
Wait, what?

Posted by: melloden

QUOTE(radek @ Sun 17th April 2011, 7:26pm) *

QUOTE(melloden @ Sun 17th April 2011, 2:10pm) *

Is anyone seeing the parallels between ArbCom and the CIA? Oh, wait, you should have seen that years ago.


Uh, let's not get crazy. Hyperbole doesn't help.


Well, let's see:
*The CIA obviously keeps tabs on people it wants to look into. (The whole Bush-NSA wiretapping thing also comes to mind.)
*ArbCom monitors "problamatic" users (AKA those who threaten its authority and cannot be sucked into it).

Posted by: Sololol

QUOTE(melloden @ Sun 17th April 2011, 2:10pm) *

Well, let's see:
*The CIA obviously keeps tabs on people it wants to look into. (The whole Bush-NSA wiretapping thing also comes to mind.)
*ArbCom monitors "problamatic" users (AKA those who threaten its authority and cannot be sucked into it).


Hey now. Let's not go tarnishing the CIA (they can handle that themselves). At least what's left of the voting public get to decide which ex-pornographer will direct the Company and they occasionally gets Congressional oversight and FOIA requests. Personally, I prefer an analogy to the Committee of Public Safety

Posted by: Theanima

This is just Pedders being a drama queen, nothing to see here.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Arbcom is always there to greet anyone who has a question relating to Wikipedia policy enforcement:

Image

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(melloden @ Sun 17th April 2011, 9:59pm) *

QUOTE(radek @ Sun 17th April 2011, 7:26pm) *

QUOTE(melloden @ Sun 17th April 2011, 2:10pm) *

Is anyone seeing the parallels between ArbCom and the CIA? Oh, wait, you should have seen that years ago.


Uh, let's not get crazy. Hyperbole doesn't help.


Well, let's see:
*The CIA obviously keeps tabs on people it wants to look into. (The whole Bush-NSA wiretapping thing also comes to mind.)
*ArbCom monitors "problamatic" users (AKA those who threaten its authority and cannot be sucked into it).


Seriously?

Posted by: melloden

QUOTE(radek @ Mon 18th April 2011, 4:42pm) *

QUOTE(melloden @ Sun 17th April 2011, 9:59pm) *

QUOTE(radek @ Sun 17th April 2011, 7:26pm) *

QUOTE(melloden @ Sun 17th April 2011, 2:10pm) *

Is anyone seeing the parallels between ArbCom and the CIA? Oh, wait, you should have seen that years ago.


Uh, let's not get crazy. Hyperbole doesn't help.


Well, let's see:
*The CIA obviously keeps tabs on people it wants to look into. (The whole Bush-NSA wiretapping thing also comes to mind.)
*ArbCom monitors "problamatic" users (AKA those who threaten its authority and cannot be sucked into it).


Seriously?


No. 9_9.

Posted by: carbuncle

I have a vague memory of a minor scandal wherein someone claimed they had access to the unsecured ARBCOM wiki... Maybe involving Giano. Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

They have a whole Wiki worth of "sekret" files on people !?!

This must be the start of the "Sooper Unsekret Let's have a biography about Everyone" Jimbo has been threatening to unleash on the world ... "and what is wrong with that?" he cries.

And how does it filter down the system? Arbcom grandees slip secrets out to the chosen underling followers?

No, definitely, if they are keeping files on people, those people should be informed and allowed to comment and correct them ... or disappear them ... if they want.

I suppose private entities keeping files on individuals is not covered by freedom on information laws ... what about the right of disclosure etc?

I am sure they must have a big fat one on The Kohser.

Posted by: Emperor

This was documented in 2007.

http://encyc.org/ReasonsNotToContributeToWikipedia

QUOTE
The Administrators are Spying on You
Anonymous administrators with no background checks are given software tools to check your IP address and they have other ways to find out about you. They discuss personal details of regular contributors on secret mailing lists and many people may find out who you are, where you live, where you work, who your family is, etc. There is no anonymity on Wikipedia, except for the administrators.


Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

And you can presume there is are white hats and black hats admin groups.

Given the tendency of the Wikipedia to attract and condone sneaking and snitching - never mind give police cadets the keys - this is pretty bad.

Who else is in the machine?

Posted by: Silver seren

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Tue 19th April 2011, 1:16pm) *

I have a vague memory of a minor scandal wherein someone claimed they had access to the unsecured ARBCOM wiki... Maybe involving Giano. Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?


I remember that one. And then Arbcom was freaking out and was all like "Ban him, ban him! We mustn't let him talk!"

Posted by: -DS-

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Tue 19th April 2011, 3:16pm) *

I have a vague memory of a minor scandal wherein someone claimed they had access to the unsecured ARBCOM wiki... Maybe involving Giano. Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?


Yep, it was Giano and apparently some banned user who "specializes in harassment of other users".

Posted by: Sololol

QUOTE(-DS- @ Tue 19th April 2011, 2:29pm) *

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Tue 19th April 2011, 3:16pm) *

I have a vague memory of a minor scandal wherein someone claimed they had access to the unsecured ARBCOM wiki... Maybe involving Giano. Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?


Yep, it was Giano and apparently some banned user who "specializes in harassment of other users".

Did any of it ever surface?

Posted by: -DS-

QUOTE(Sololol @ Thu 21st April 2011, 7:00pm) *

QUOTE(-DS- @ Tue 19th April 2011, 2:29pm) *

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Tue 19th April 2011, 3:16pm) *

I have a vague memory of a minor scandal wherein someone claimed they had access to the unsecured ARBCOM wiki... Maybe involving Giano. Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?


Yep, it was Giano and apparently some banned user who "specializes in harassment of other users".

Did any of it ever surface?


Not to my knowledge, no.

Posted by: Sololol

QUOTE(-DS- @ Fri 22nd April 2011, 6:38am) *

QUOTE(Sololol @ Thu 21st April 2011, 7:00pm) *

QUOTE(-DS- @ Tue 19th April 2011, 2:29pm) *

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Tue 19th April 2011, 3:16pm) *

I have a vague memory of a minor scandal wherein someone claimed they had access to the unsecured ARBCOM wiki... Maybe involving Giano. Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?


Yep, it was Giano and apparently some banned user who "specializes in harassment of other users".

Did any of it ever surface?


Not to my knowledge, no.

'Tis a pity. Ah well.


But at least the private arbcom wiki still seems to be https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13290


Posted by: Maetu

Given how hard some people will try to hide the shit they're doing on wikipedia is it any shock that arbcom might keep a rap sheet on them?

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(Maetu @ Sat 29th October 2011, 5:39pm) *

Given how hard some people will try to hide the shit they're doing on wikipedia is it any shock that arbcom might keep a rap sheet on them?


Nah, actually that part is understandable. More or less any internet forum wants to keep tabs on folks who show up just because the internets sort of invites lots of crazies so it's more or less a good idea to keep some data on who they are. The problem is that 1) they get all sneaky and secretive about it and 2) that they try to monopolize the right to have these kinds of private considerations. If two people who are on the arbcom converse privately that's "discussing issues". If two random Wikipedia editors email each other about their concerns all of sudden that's "coordination" "canvassing" and everything else that's supposedly bad in the Wikiworld that you can think of. Again, it's not the practice itself which is all that problematic (indeed, a lot of what happens is a natural human response and basic human interaction) but the all prevalent hypocrisy which says "WE can do this, but if YOU even try to do this, then that's BAD BAD BAD!" Or in other words, one rule for them, another rule for everyone else.