Arbcom secret pages Options

[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'.

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=...oldid=424421857

[Silver seren]

Is this supposed to be new information?

[Peter Damian]

Is this supposed to be new information?

Information wants to be free.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[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

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.

This post has been edited by Sololol: