On 6/15/07, Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org wrote:
On 6/15/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/07, Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org wrote:
On 6/15/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/07, Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org wrote:
I realize this is a minority opinion and I've been outnumbered on it before, but there it is. If I were not completely open about who I am on this site, and did want to maintain anonymity, I would probably want to be using TOR myself.
Kat, the issue of editing with proxies is different from wanting to be an admin and carry on using them. We have issues with users running more than one admin account, and one of the ways they're allegedly doing this is by using open proxies. Being able to log an admin's real IP address is the only tiny bit of accountability the Foundation has regarding admins.
I don't actually think it's very different, editing and being an admin. Admins do not have much technical power beyond that of ordinary editors; what they do have could just as easily be abused by someone editing from a public library, cybercafe, or other public terminal, and yet we don't ban those accounts from becoming admins.
The latter's true, but checkusers can at least see their location. If you have two admin accounts making the same kinds of edits, with the same voice, and both editing from location X (one from a library, the other from an internet cafe), it's a good indication you've got a problem.
Trojan admin accounts can do a lot of damage. They can view and copy deleted material; unblock abusive users; unprotect pages that would be better left protected; cause endless arguments on AN/I by questioning other admins; log and hand out conversations on the admins' channel, and doubtless other things I haven't thought of.
I still don't see why someone using an anonymizing proxy, who has maintained a consistent identity, does not resemble another user, and otherwise does not ping anyone's trouble radar, is more of a risk here than any other admin for whom we do not know any personal details.
We have some details for most admins, if only the IP address if it's needed. That allows checkusers to look for sockpuppetry, and it allows the Foundation to respond to a request from a court for the admin's details in case of libel, for example. It's minimal accountability, and to take even that away would mean that someone who was permabanned could easily be up and running several admin accounts a few months later, and could cause a lot of trouble, with almost no way of getting caught. Look at Wikitruth, for example, and the reposting of possibly libelous or distressing material. Look at the trouble caused by people posting IRC logs from the admins channel.
I think the important point is that it's a violation of policy to edit with open proxies, so it's a bit rich for an editor to ask to become an admin, who'll be able to block others for policy violations, while violating it themselves every single time they edit. If they want to change the policy, they should try to do that openly before standing.