On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin
<slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/18/07, John Lee <johnleemk(a)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.