On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Nevertheless, the pertinent issue is whether it is against policy to edit through open proxies.
I think the most pressing issue is not the policy thing, but that someone who wanted adminship was very keen to ensure that no one, not even the Foundation, could find out anything about them. Not even the location s/he edits from, or the ISP.
Perhaps we should focus on that question: do we want any kind of minimum accountability from admins, or do we not care who they are, or that one person might easily be controlling multiple admin accounts?
If we do want minimum accountability, how do we get it? If we don't want minimum accountability, are we willing to accept the consequences e.g. that it's currently easy for a banned or malicious user to get adminship, not just once, but multiple times?
I'd support requiring admins to provide their real identity to the foundation. In fact, I'd support making everyone who provides their real identity to the foundation an admin, at least unless they prove to be unworthy of such a position.
Oh yeah, and I'd also support adding anyone who has verified their identity to the foundation to the ipblock-exempt list, regardless of whether or not they're an admin.