[WikiEN-l] Editing with open proxies

[Anthony]

On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/18/07, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> > On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 6/18/07, John Lee <johnleemk at 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.
>
> I'm not sure that would help, unless we're willing to employ
> investigators to make sure people have faxed the Foundation the right
> ID.

How does it currently work for checkusers and others that have to
verify their identity?  In the US notary publics are available to
verify the identity of a signature on a document.  Surely something
like this is available in most other countries where en-wikipedia
admins are located, right?  Maybe you could have the person send in a
photo of themselves holding up a sign with their username on it.  I
don't know, I'm open for suggestions.  You seem to want accountability
from admins - the way you get that is by having admins provide their
identity.

> And knowing that Admin A is called Bill Smith in real life doesn't
> tell us whether he's a banned or malicious user.
>
No, it doesn't.  Of course, *nothing* is going to tell us that unless
you intend to get every *user* to verify their identity.

> As I see it, what we need to start doing as a minimum, is stop
> promoting people who've spent a few months hitting revert every few
> seconds. That kind of profile tells us nothing about the person, and
> it's too easy to build up several accounts that way. And we need to
> ditch the "it's no big deal" thing. It's not for us to decide that
> it's "no big deal" when hurtful material deleted from Wikipedia ends
> up on Wikitruth, just because the material's not about us. The
> existence of Wikitruth is a direct consequence of the "it's no big
> deal" mentality.
>
I think it's far too late for that, and that the only solution is to
embrace the "it's no big deal" mentality.  Any information which is a
[[clear and present danger]] should be oversighted and taken away from
the view of even the admins.