On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
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.
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.