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?

[taiwopanfob]

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.

[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:

[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?

[melloden]

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

[radek]

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.

[EricBarbour]

This 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.

[radek]

This 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.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

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.

[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.

[EricBarbour]

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.

[Sarcasticidealist]

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?

[melloden]

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).

[Sololol]

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

[Theanima]

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

[A Horse With No Name]

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

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/13/Woody-wet-blanket-policy.jpg)

[radek]

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?

[melloden]

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.

This post has been edited by melloden: