Arbcom secret pages Options

[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?

[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.

[Emperor]

This was documented in 2007.

http://encyc.org/ReasonsNotToContributeToWikipedia

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.

[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?

[Silver seren]

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!"

[-DS-]

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".

[Sololol]

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?

[-DS-]

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.

[Sololol]

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 operating.



This post has been edited by Sololol: Mon 25th April 2011, 5:54pm

[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?

[radek]

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.