Wikipedia talk:Administrators accountability

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Okay, here's the talk page, where you can take a swing at any idea in the accountability policy page.

But please remember that our major problems here, which are "How do we know this guy is who he says he is"? and "How do we know this guy's the expert he claims he is"? have already been solved to various degrees in the "real" world. It happens every time you apply for a job, a credit card, a license to practice X profession. Don't tell me it can't be done. An amazing amount of it is done whenever you sell something on eBAY. Can it be spoofed? Yes. But the best is ever the enemy of the good. The fact that some system in the Real World isn't perfect, should never be used to completely refuse to start work on version 1.0, of the bad system we presently have on Wikipedia.

I'm tired of having everybody tell me that they'll be wikistalked if, in order to earn administrative powers on Wikipedia, they need to use their real names. Well, why isn't the same true if they are required to use their real names to be a fireman, or a college professor? Does the highway patrol officer who pulls you off the road for having a broken taillight, tell you his name if you ask him? Sure he does. And why not? Do scientists publish their results under their own names, and not pseudonyms? You bet. We expect them to. And for a reason. It's called integrity. Wikipedia is badly short of it, and the reasons given for it don't stand up to what we expect in the rest of the life of adults in our society. The result is an encyclopedia edited by people behaving like children.

So I'm tired of this tempest in a teapot about anonymity. If you don't want the heat, get out of this kitchen. Wikipedia's getting too important to the world to just let "anybody" do it. Faceless "anybody" is not somebody I want having do ANYTHING of large responsibility for me. How about YOU? SBHarris 23:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

For the opposite view, see the introduction of Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks. --cesarb 23:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to point out that college professors and firemen are not required to put their real names and home addresses on a publicly-viewable website. Cynical 14:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
As far as college professors go, their real names are most certainly available. There is no college I have ever heard of which does not list its faculty on a public site. Most have their office phone numbers and locations listed, and their emails can almost always be deciphered. At some colleges, this information is limited to people associated with the college, at least as far as the main staff directory is concerned. Home addresses and telephones are another matter. Nor would they be listed here. DGG 18:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe they don't want people to know they edit Wikipedia? --WikiSlasher 15:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Comments

I'll allow others to address basic philosophical issues and make just a couple of points. One is that in Wikipedia parlance, "administrator" and "sysop" are the same thing, so the proposed hierarchy is mislabelled. Second, many of our administrators are legally minors, and I do not see that the proposal that people present all kinds of information about their identities has taken that into account. Newyorkbrad 00:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll fix the error in hierarchy (thanks). As for minors, they drive automobiles, and even fly airplanes (you can do that, at an even younger age). You think we as a society don't need to know their identities, or should? With power comes responsibility. It MUST. There's just no way around it, or you get chaos. SBHarris 00:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest the "real name, address, ..." should not apply to administrators, but only to people at higher levels (maybe bureaucrat, and definitely checkusers). --Aude (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
One 'philosophical issue' which I consider at odds with this proposal is that we don't award positions based on who people are, or say they are, in the real world. At least we shouldn't. I don't think Essjay was appointed to all the positions he was because he claimed to be a theology professor... I don't recall ever having heard about him being a professor until the whole brouhaha over the fact that he wasn't. Essjay got all those positions because of the work he did here. Does it really matter whether he said he was a professor, a 24 year old whatever, or an alien with three heads? So long as his Wikipedia contributions were true I really wouldn't care much about a false identity. Heck, I assume that alot of the people I meet on Wikipedia aren't who they say they are. I've been kicking around computer networks for over twenty years now and seen far too many falsified identities to ever think it wouldn't happen at Wikipedia... even without proof in the form of the constant activity at RFCU. Essjay shouldn't have evoked his faked credentials to 'win' content disputes... but then, we should never have let him. Setting aside the possibility of deception, even if we somehow know the credentials are real... so what? I know there is this whole 'experts' debate, but put me down as 'anti expert' in that I believe an expert should be held to the same standards as everyone else... cite it, discuss it, gather consensus. They should never be able to dictate things to others. I'm 'pro expert' in that I'd absolutely love to have lots of them here and encourage them to contribute what they know, but I don't believe in treating them differently. This proposal seems almost like an 'expert verification process' so that we then can afford them special respect in their fields. IMO that'd be a very bad idea. It would allow 'recognized experts' too much room for 'POV pushing' and 'original research' on the esoterica of their fields. --CBD 00:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Where Privacy policy comes into play, with people handling sensitive personal information, I think it would be advisable for the Foundation to know who our checkusers are. --Aude (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure, we require 'reality checking' for board members and extending that to some things like checkuser or OTRS might be reasonable. However, I don't think it need go down to the level of sysops (for those who are now suspicious... I really am an overweight 35 year old computer programming geek... no, really) and I'm strongly against applying it to users in various 'fields of expertise'. --CBD 00:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Age does matter

...many of our administrators are legally minors..."
That many in authority are so young is one of the most obvious components of the problem. Young people are known for their energy and creativity, not (on average) for their good judgement. It's silly to hand a thirteen year old the keys to the car and then demand that he to be accountable, isn't it? There's no sense in handing positions of responsibility to those we have reason (even if only a generic reason) to believe that they're not ready to handle. A significant number of Wiki debacles can be attributed to plain immaturity; this recent flap is clearly one of them.
I don't have such a problem with minors blocking obvious vandals, but in more complex disputes, I'd like to see someone a little older. Who can be favorable to the idea of minors restoring a deleted BLP? That we've had teenagers on the arbitration committee standing in judgement over some who may in real life may actually be professors is simply ridiculous. How much more this applies to checkuser. I'd like to know it's someone with a job, maybe even kids...responsibilities. Someone who's spent enough time in the real world to not see Wikipedia as a role playing game.Proabivouac 00:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
It is just hilarious - and sad - that you are even having to make this point. C.m.jones 02:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I certainly have some issues with minors being holding admin roles for the reasons you outline above. I am also in full agreement that there must be some accountability for admin roles and above. I would be very unhappy about minors having to reveal their address to anyone as that goes against all child protection legislation around the world. However, there are admin who are minors that do a very good job and I would not wish these to be denied this roll. Unfortunately these issues cannot be reconciled. As a result, I believe that the only solution that satisfies the accountability of admins would be to limit admin roles to those of legal responsibility. Ultimately, an admin role does have some responsibility and given the type of responsibility some of this may have legal implications which require the holders of these positions to have reached a certain age. Munta 01:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
That's the whole problem... That's how so many people see Wikipedia: a huge role-playing game... where one can be whatever one wants: a retired professor, with a bunch of important degrees... or anything one wants! The connection to real life does not matter! Create your own world! Create your own new, powerful identity! Create your own truth! 131.111.8.97 01:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Adminship is no big deal people. The only reason we don't hand everyone the tools is that a lot of random people would abuse them. It's just Wikipedia and the logistics of verifying "legal responsibility" (which would vary from country to country) would be a nightmare. Let people be an admin, bureaucrat or arbitration committee member if they show they are able to do the job. --WikiSlasher 15:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ban anons and sockpuppets outright

Subject line says it all. ---CH 01:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A modest proposal: antivandal blocks and reverts anonymous, too

The complete elimination of IP-editors has been suggested. Hotel rooms and rental cars aren't vandalized much for a very good reason. Yes, this hurts the business trade in rentals to minors, but it's worth it. Some of the asymmetry between the admin and vandal is also removed, if the vandal is traceable to an ISP which can be complained to. In fact I recently reverted a vandal who insisted that Andrew Lloyd Weber invented nitrogen, then thought it was cute to sign me (my email address) up for a bunch of advertising services, when I prevented more of this. He wouldn't have been so bold had he been traceable. That he was allowed to edit from a position of anonIP was the root cause of the problem. It's certainly no excuse for ME to claim a false identity.

Now here's a suggestion in the other direction, which would ALSO restore some of the symmetry between vandals and antivandals: simply give anti-vandal-reversion-edits (RVV) and short-blocks-for-vandalism (SBV) a class of their own, and a three letter edit summary code of their own, and by this, make THEM automatically anonymous. The "vandal" in this case sees no record of who blackballed them (except that it's for claimed clear vandalism), and thus has nobody to retaliate against. So admins in the most blatant cases (and we can include age-minors admins here too, if you like) can be completely fearless. And fearful editors can stay away from reverting anything unclear with these codes. What prevents abuse? An RVV or SBV goes to one appeal if the blocked or reverted "victim" chooses, but the consequences of appealing a vandal block or revert must be nasty to the loser of this, for this to work. By which I mean a longish block for the abuser of the system, whoever it is.

Will this take much work? No. Most vandalisms are so clear (as we all know) that nobody's going to appeal them in the first place. End of 99% of the problem of having pages replaced with "Billy's a FAAAG!".SBHarris 02:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't agree with this proposal - at least as it stands. Reverts can be, and often are, made in error dispite the appearance of vandalism. How could you guarentee an edit was vandalism and how would define the rules for deciding so? If reverts were anonomous then who would editors know who to discuss this with? How would 3RR work in this situation? Munta 03:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The revert would be anonymous, but the appeal (if any) would not be. The 3RR rule would (as usual) not apply to this sort of reversion. As to how clear vandalism needs to be, and is in real life, it's usually crystal clear to EVERYBODY. You really don't think so? How.... odd. You're the first editor I've ever met who thought that most cases would be at all difficult to judge. Anybody else want to chime in? SBHarris 03:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I shall deal with these in turn
  • The revert would be anonymous, but not the appeal - So who would you appeal to. Normally reverts made in error can be sorted out by simple discussion on a users talk page but with no user then there is no talk page to discuss it on.
  • As to how clear vandalism needs to be - Page blanking, fair enough but some edits could be accidental or made in good faith yet some people may think them vandalism. Allowing anonomous reverts would prevent discussion or appologies from being made.
  • most cases would be at all difficult to judge - I said that they often are - not that the majority are.
I'm not saying that your idea is unwarranted, just that in your suggested form it may introduce an other (un-needed) level of beurocracy (sp?) if these reverts need to go to appeal. Munta 03:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There are many ways to skin this cat automatically, but a revert with a simple "RVV," or a short-term block of a user or IP for vandalism with a 3-letter code (you could even have a TAB for this!), would (or could) automatically result in a note to the IP or user's TALK page that they'd been reverted for what somebody considered CLEAR vandalism, and that they could (if they chose) appeal by simply hitting the link provided. WITH the warning that if they chose the review AND the case went against them (ie, they were just wasting time) things would go hard for them. Hitting the "review" link would simply result in a note or request for action in some list for review, rather like the lists generated now under WP:ANI or requests for vandalism intervention. I don't think this would result in many requests, since most vandals know they're vandals, and know they've been trying to vandalize. They're not about to draw any more punishment. If the case is found to be a genuine arguable one, then both parties can be notified and somebody taken to severe task (probably the vandaltool invoker, in that case). And a tally of bad judgements can be kept up, just as it is now with various tools. Block somebody with this for something not clearly vandalism more than a couple of times, and you yourself are in for a time-out! And I'm actually not talking about page-blanking, which can be a mistake, but page-blanking replaced with "&^$# YOUR SISTER!" and repeated instances of that kind of thing. There's no mistaking it, and most of what admins clean up right now from anon-IPs and new vandal accounts, consists of this kind of thing. I've seen it. You've seen it. We all know it.

    Now, you may have noticed that what many vandalbots do NOW comes sometimes close to all of this. But the difference is that the vendalbot is still traceable to its runnner. People who run a script like VandalProof are afraid it's also traceable and invites reprisal against the editor. But antivandalism can be anonymous, if you want to try it as an experiment. I'm talking about anonymous vandal reverts, and anonymous 24 hour user-blocks, for the username masses, here! Now everybody running under a username, can be an untracable sysop, when it comes to the worst vandal trash. With the review tool in place and the penalties for misusing the tool, this can be a Wikipedia tool for everybody, not just administrators. How often I've wanted something like it! Click a tab and nail that turkey in one shot!

    Finally, if you need one more metaphor for this, think of those automatic cameras in intersections which photograph you running that red light, with you behind the wheel, dumb grin and all, license plate and all. You get that photo of your crime in the mail and no human has probably ever seen it. You can pay the fine, knowing you screwed up and there's photo proof of it, or you can appeal it. But with that kind of evidence, most people just pay up, having been nailed. No cop involved. Nobody to get mad at, even. Except yourself for driving poorly. SBHarris 04:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How I see it - my proposals

Privacy: It is very important that people's real-life identities not be revealed against their will and not be easily discoverable. That especially applies to admins who may impose blocks on stray trolls and vandals, but it applies to any user who is concerned about coming into conflicts. This is basic and non-negotiable. No proposal to the contrary is at all realistic.

Expertise: All users should take claims to expertise, such as those made by Essjay with a grain of salt. It's as simple as that. Any deference should be to demonstrated expertise such as shown by obvious mastery of the subject matter. This is not as expert-friendly as might be ideal, but it is practical. The issue only becomes a huge one if the Foundation or the office holds someone out as an expert, e.g. to the media (see below).

Accountability - admins: Mere admins as individuals are subject to so many restraints that they can do only limited damage. Nonetheless, I would not be opposed to a system where it is compulsory for admins to provide certain information to a confidential register. The register would include their real names, residential addresses, and any secondary accounts they have held and for what reasons or purposes (there can be legitimate reasons, but this would deal with the concerns about whether Essjay, for example, used sockpuppets).

Accountability - above admin: Even if admins are not required to place detail on such a register, doing so could be made voluntary. It could then be required that people given "higher responsibilities" (bureaucrats, arbcom members, user checkers, and anyone else above that) be chosen from those who are on the register.

The register: The register would have to be kept confidentially by someone real and accountable, i.e. Jimbo, or more realistically another Board member nominated by him, or more realistically still by someone like the legal officer. It should not be able to be accessed by people who are not "real" such as arbcom members - even they are just usernames with good records so far (at least that's how they would continue to appear to most of us, even though their identities would be on the register).

Expertise revisited: If the Foundation is going to hold out someone as having expertise, it should require that person to be on the register and should also check the person's qualifications and register them.

Age: I don't generally favour registering personal details such as date of birth, but I would not have a strong objection to this being on the register. I don't think that mere admins should have to prove they are not minors. However, I can understand an argument that those entrusted with higher level power (bureaucrats, etc.) should not be minors - that is worth further discussion.

EDIT: I tend to think now that it would be best if we made registration voluntary for admins and compulsory above that level. We could say that minors will not be registered and that registration will include date of birth. This would dovetail nicely with a rule that we not have minors above that level. It would also mean that we would not be registering the addresses of any minors, which would be a concern. However, these permutations of detail could be worked out within the general scheme I am proposing, if it has any legs.

Enforcement: I don't favour a complex method of providing proof of identity or of enforcement. It should, however be policy that anyone who is later caught having given false or misleading information to the register will be stripped immediately of all authority and tools beyond those of an ordinary user. Also, such cases should be announced publicly somewhere within the community portal. That should provide sufficient disincentive to people to lie in providing their details.

Note on implementation: These proposals envisage the involvement of real-life individuals (e.g. legal officers). Therefore, they would need to have the support of people like Jimbo and Board members. In any event, I think that that is essential for any scheme that is now developed, especially if it relates to our own real-life information, such as our real-life identities.

Metamagician3000 02:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


All good suggestions and improvements, IMHO. I have no problem with giving minors minor editorial powers. But as you say, for matters involving bad penalties or complex social judgement, our founding fathers, who required legislators to be 30, and presidents to be 35, were not out of their minds. It takes at least that long for most people to get any social sense. Essjay, please note, wouldn't have made it to congress, either. SBHarris 02:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I see no justification to deny volunteer admins the right to be anonymous. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Metamagician3000 - Although the letter of this proposal will almost certainly be revised before it is approved by the powers that be, I like it in spirit. And the sooner Jimbo abandons the idea of verified credentials, the better. // Internet Esquire 00:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Minors" is a red herring.

Whether an editor is a minor has very little bearing on the quality of their judgment. Our evaluation of an individual's decision making ability should be based on what decisions they have shown us and the quality of thought that they display, not how long they've been breathing air for.

In the real world rights are granted based on arbitrary numbers simply because the number of people that must be dealt with is so high. Here we are still of modest enough size to deal with people on an individual basis, so we can move beyond arbitrary designators such as age or its internet doppelganger edit count. We should not trust people with administrative abilities because they are of legal age in the real world, or even because they are lawyers or professors or business owners or Supreme Court justices, we should trust them because they have demonstrated the ability to work well with others and handle conflicts here. In our administration, one uneducated child who can speak with the Voice of Reason and calm down an edit war is worth ten men who have learned the writings of a thousand scholars but never how to get along with others.

Furthermore, the contributions of young people should not be dissuaded, but encouraged as much as possible. Teenagers have more free time than anyone else but the retired, so they are the very definition of active, and by accepting them into the fold now you potentially gain a lifetime of contributions from them. We have an advantage here, Wikipedia's egalitarian nature is among its greatest draws, and brings into our ranks many bright youths who are tired of being talked down to as children and want a chance to be judged objectively, by what they say and do and think rather than their height or formal position. To exclude otherwise capable individuals from leadership roles simply due to their age would not only be groundless, but foolish. --tjstrf talk 05:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, all of my interactions with the above user have - it has been plain as day that Tjstrf is a teenager with very immature judgment. C.m.jones 01:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
And with all due respect to you, your use of my age as an argument against me does nothing but fortify my point: You can't find anything about the actual argument to attack, so you instead attack the speaker. I believe community consensus speaks for itself here though.
It doesn't particularly bother me though, I've had my age used against me at least a dozen times now on Wikipedia by people who couldn't construct a real argument. My personal favorite was "I HAVE SKIRTS OLDER THAN YOU!", but this one earns bonus points for irony since the subject itself is an argument about the irrelevance of age. --tjstrf talk 18:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Would love to argue the issue, but unfortunately you're going against the current of all English common law and most of recorded history in other cultures, as well. Other than that, I like it as an intellectual exercise. If you factor out age as an issue, you have no objective way to tell the mental processes of children from those of the mentally handicapped. From there, it's just a simple matter of equating civil rights, freedoms and responsiblities, with mental ability. Which means less of them all for dumb people. Do you want to do that on a sliding scale, or would you like a binary test?SBHarris 07:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree in the strongest terms with tjstrf. There have been repeated discussions (now archived but accessible) of this issue at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship and the consensus has always been very strongly that administrators and other positions are filling on the basis of merit, as perceived by the community, and not of age or any other similar factor. Some of our best administrators are drawn from the younger editors, and there are very few administrative tasks as to which age is a relevant factor. For legal reasons, members of the Board of Trustees and possibly Stewards are required to be over 18, but that rationale has nothing to do with administrators. I'm not going to repeat everything I've said at undue length in prior discussions on this issue, but to impose an arbitrary age minimum for that position would damage our community and our encyclopedia. Newyorkbrad 20:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with tjstrf. Age is meaningless, behaviour is everything. Gwen Gale 14:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not age is meaningless, age should be meaningless, and Wikipedia's policies should be silent on the issue of age, other things being equal. // Internet Esquire 05:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The only time I get nettled by a teen here is when one acts like a monkey boy. There are lots of helpful teens on this wiki, some are admins. The scariest and most unhelpful editors (and admins) I've run into were clearly adults. but whatever, whilst I think WP's admin system could use an overhaul to get the unhelpful teenboy buddy system out of its middle management, I don't think age should have anything to do with how that's done. Gwen Gale 18:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree with tjstrf. We do have fewer rights for dumb people, in the sense that our policies are made by logic and persuasion, and dumb people are, by definition, less logical and persuasive. And if you don't agree with that, you are a neener-neener-no-no. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I thoroughly agree with tjstrf. Us teenagers are smarter than you think. You see by my edit history that I've made many knowledgeable edits in my time on Wikipedia. That's more than some adults on here can say. --Theunicyclegirl 20:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested reading

A while back, I wrote some stuff at Wikipedia talk:Expert Retention#A new path, which might be fruitful for this discussion.

Essentially, there are two sides to the house: The administrative side--doing chores like site maintenance, user administration, page protection, etc; and the content (editorial) side--writing the damn encyclopedia. Wikipedia has lots of designated roles and responsibilities in place for the former--admin, bureaucrat, arbcom, checkuser; the latter is delegated--equally--to the entire community. Including to anonymous users--the community has long focused on the quality of one's edits rather than credentials. At least until now.

Essjay got in trouble for dishonesty in the latter--pretending to be a professor when he was not, and using this to "win" content disputes; as a result he was asked to resign his roles in the former (where his capabilities were not questioned). The "rules" he violated weren't explicitly written down--nowhere does WP:USER enjoin such behavior--but they do violate basic ethical standards for scholarly publication. So I'm fine with the resolution of the incident.

It's been asked, of course, whether or not any other Wikipedian edits claiming credentials he or she doesn't legitimately possess. I don't know; my money suspects there are. (Who they may be, I have no idea--that's just playing the odds).

At any rate--I think some greater separation of powers may be in order. Perhaps ArbCom members shouldn't have oversight or checkuser priveleges--and perhaps they shouldn't be bureaucrats or stewards either. If we do start recognizing experts--that might be a useful parallel "track" apart from administration. Wikipedia has long IMHO suffered from a specific version of the Peter Principle--quite a few good albeit contentious editors have become admins, and not succeeded in that role. Fortunately, most good editors who become admins become good admins as well, and/or only use the tools when needed.

Enough ranting... :) --EngineerScotty 19:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps this proposal can be built up into an accountability process of it's own as related to edits by admins etc. on Wikipedia. Tougher penalties (I use that word loosely) for admins who abuse their privileges than the usual slap of the wrist. Perhaps the criteria for adminship should also be toughened up as I have seen pages where users openly declare their intention to vote for each other in their requests for adminship. The problem of accountability on Wikipedia is huge and needs a measured and well-thought overhaul. Ekantik talk 02:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support

  • Agree with all the items proposed. Regards, --Jayzel 14:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support as well. I have no problems with submitting my own credentials to the Foundation. Slambo (Speak) 20:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree Skult of Caro (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supervision and standards for those in power

For me the real abuse comes from the wanton and arbitrary behavior of bureaucrats and administrators and others with special powers. There appears to be no supervision or oversight, or even any meaningful standards of behavior for bureaucrats, administrators and those with check user privileges. A person with check user privileges can exercise that power over a user without going through the standard procedures and need not provide any documentation or explanation of how they arrived at their conclusions. There is no accountability. An administrator/bureaucrat can host forums on a talk page denigrating a user and then suddenly turn up as the mediator in a dispute involving that user, beginning the mediation by making a ANI complaint ridiculing the user. This appears not to violate any standard. Are there ethical standards as there are in professions, and a method of making a complaint if a standard is violated? Are there any rules about conflict of interest, as is central to most professions? Sincerely, Mattisse 15:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

While I was writing this, some of the above was being posted so I gather there are some standards so that there is such a thing as "abuse of privilege". Apparently there is no enforcement process or a severely insufficient one. Sincerely, Mattisse 15:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin identities - how many will we lose?

Isn't administratorship supposed to be not a big deal? how many would we lose out of the 1,300 if they had to disclose their real identities to anyone? I think that anyone at Sysop or lower should be allowed privacy, but anything higher (checkuser, otrs, b'cat, arbcom) should require foundation-level disclosure. Anything higher (steward, board) should be public disclosure for all... - Denny 17:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It was once suposed to be "no big thing", but that time has passed if it ever truly was.
I've been on an indefinite leave of absence from Wikipedia precisely because of a group of admin who felt they were 'better' than the rest of the wiki because they had been granted authority. Too many admin see RfA as a 'vetting process' that proves they are the 'better kind of editor'. And further to that, there was a growing feeling and unwritten policy that 'admins do not take action against other admins', and such things as the civility policy did not apply to admin dealing with 'annoying editors'.
Yes, I think if we apply these new requirements for admin, arbcom and bcrat, then we're going to loose a lot of them as they refuse to accept them.
And this would be a *GOOD THING*. Anonymity does not sit well with responsibility, and in the words of Uncle Ben, with power comes responsibility. Anonymity while wielding power leads to abuse of that power, as responsibility is diminished. --Barberio 18:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, I do agree that the time for utterly anon, unaccountable admins is over. Gwen Gale 23:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I could debate whether or not anonymity really makes that much of a difference. But I will just say that we can not afford to lose all the admins and bureaucrats we would if they were forced to disclose their real-life identities. As it is, if one of our active bureaucrats takes a wikibreak, someone else gets their work doubled. And we regularly have an absurdly large CSD backlog, even with all our administrators. We have long since passed the point where we could effectively work by only giving the power to block users to people who are willing to disclose their identity. That argument doesn't apply to Arbcom, but I thought Arbcom already had an identity disclosure requirement. -Amarkov moo! 01:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
It's called "tough love" - The Wikipedian ideal is to be gentle and thoughtful towards other users, but occasions arise where it is necessary to be a little tough. My, I've seen admins without a Userpage (and who constantly delete it whenever someone creates it for them)! In my experience these types of anon admins are usually the ones who appear to enjoy creating a negative environment for editors based on their idea of what Wikipedia should be like. An administrative position on Wikipedia is essentially a position of "authority" on Wikipedia and one which is earnd by the community's trust/votes, so it naturally follows that if the community places it's trust in the user to be an admin, the admin should similarly place their trust in the Wikimedia Foundation to keep their details confidential. That's how it works in the real world as regards employment, why shouldn't it be so on Wikipedia especially considering that admin positions are unpaid and voluntary.
If users want the responsibility of adminship, they ought to be responsible for themselves and for their actions. I firmly agree with Gwen Gale that the time for anon and unaccountable admins is over, and as such they should perhaps re-evaluate their reasons and motivations for applying for adminship in the first place. I'm sure any "exodus" of admins who wish to retain anonymity will be quickly filled up by users who will be willing to responsibly submit some salient details about themselves. Ekantik talk 03:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Accord with Barberio and Gwen Gale. Admins should be allowed pseudonymity, but not anonymity. As such, those admins who want to hide behind a pseudonym should be required to register their real name and address with the powers that be at Wikimedia. // Internet Esquire 05:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You'd lose me. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And probably me, depending on what I had to disclose, to whom, and what they would be allowed to do with that information. Fram 16:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Only to be clear, I've never said basic admins should be required to disclose their ID to Wikipedia (confidentially or otherwise). There's a flurry of reasons why this could be unhelpful. What I've said is that the whole admin selection thing needs a big overhaul and that current admin accounts should be reviewed IMO. There are far too many sockpuppets and PoV warriors (for starters) among them. Gwen Gale 16:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
If you're saying there are sockpuppet admins, that's an extremely serious charge that requires immediate investigation as it would probably have entailed large scale fraud against the community. Please provide an example so this can be checked out. Regarding the 'POV warrior admin', that's also unacceptable and should be handled through dispute resolution/RFAR as soon as possible. Examples of that would be helpful as well if you would like assistance. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect for your concerns, I won't be drawn into charges of sockpuppetry or abuse against any other editor, nor have I made any charges against anyone. There are dozens of helpful admins working here. The admin system at WP is broken, is all. I've expressed my humble opinion that the selection process is little more than a buddy system which is gamed by bored teen boys (erm, and worse) and should be overhauled but let's not forgot that some teenaged boys have made and are wonderful admins. Moreover, I think all admin accounts should be reviewed. That would about do it for me. Meanwhile I support Wikipedia policy. If I've violated any policy in making these comments, please let me know. I'll be happy to say I'm sorry and to retract anything I've said, as needed. Thanks for responding though. I'm glad someone who cares is reading this stuff :) Gwen Gale 16:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about ArbCom

No opinion on the proposal itself, but it should include ArbCom alongside Checkuser/Oversight/Bureaucrat. 69.201.182.76 17:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Done SBHarris 17:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Not a key difference—most arbitrators hold at least one of those other functions. I think the proposal to publish these individuals' real names would cost us the service of some valuable individuals, though. Newyorkbrad 20:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I feel the contribution that anonymous high level administrators may make has to be balanced against the fundamental lack of accountability that anonymity allows. As I've already stated, allowance of anonymity while still holding such important power inherently leads towards weakening of responsibility. Those who are not willing to stand by their opinions in public, when those opinions provide the basis for high level administrative actions, may not be appropriate wielders of that power. --Barberio 21:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Just as it takes big brass ones to enter politics, it should take some level of public accountability courage, to want to go after the power to go stomping through Wikipedia the way Essjay did, removing sysops and making sysops, and ferretting out and permabanning sockusers, etc. We're not talking about ordinary editting, much of which can still be done with lesser degress of "nymity". If we lose people from Wikipedia who want big power here without responsibility and accountability, we're not gunna miss them. I sure don't miss Essjay. At least Jimbo has the integrity to (usually) be who he is and take responsibility for what he says and does (from all I can tell). And Jimbo learned from his mistakes re Sanger. Take a page from his book. Can you imagine how much WORSE drivers many people would be, if they didn't have a license plate number showing all the time? Can you imagine how much BETTER and more polite most would be, if for EVERYBODY there was a HOW AM I DRIVING? CALL 1-800-COM-PLNT sticker on everybody's bumper, which actually did something? You know, coming very fast is a system where we'll actually be able to automatically cell-phone the guy behind and in front of us, and won't have to rely on hand signals when somebody cuts you off. That's a GOOD thing. People are way more polite with grocery carts in shopping malls than they are with cars on streets, when it should be the other way around. SBHarris 23:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, ArbCom should be included.Proabivouac 22:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
My own personal opinion is that arbcomm members should be transparently identified to the public, however I would still be comfortable editing if I knew they had at least been confidentially vetted by WMF and Wales, as volunteer workers in positions of trust, as with any responsible org. Gwen Gale 22:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lying is not the same thing as failing to disclose the truth

One of the main points in the whole Essjay controversy is not that he failed to disclose his true identity, but that he lied to fellow Wikipedians, by pretending to be more than he really was. Admins should either tell the truth or keep silent, but they should not lie outright in this way. I think that for admins it should perfectly well be allowed to

  • Not disclose any personal information, and remain completely anonymous, if they so choose; or
  • Only include true and verifiable personal information on their user pages.

What, I think, should definitely be condemned is publishing obviously false information, for example by pretending to be an Olympic boxer, a famous opera singer, a decorated war veteran, or a Nobel prize winner, when in fact one is nothing of the sort.

In other words, if admins choose to disclose personal information, they should be prepared to back it up with proper credentials; it should, however, be perfectly within their right to remain anonymous, if they so desire. 131.111.8.104 17:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  • If users claim to be someone notable, such as User Talk:George Carlin did, they have to back it up. If they don't, they will get blocked for impersonation. Acalamari 20:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep :) Meanwhile, no assertion of identity or credentials, no worries, it's strictly a behaviour thing then and the MUD side can thrive, building an enyclopedia with verified, fully supported content. Gwen Gale 23:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Will someone please demonstrate the problem here?

It's fairly well documented that anonymity leads to lack of responsibility; I have no issue with that. But the people who are forced to disclose their identity no longer truly have anonymity. If you put enough work into the site to become an admin, you are your account; it's not an anonymous barrier you can hide behind. I can count on one hand the number of admins who have actually been maliciously irresponsible after getting the tools. Once you get past that, there is even less of a problem; because the amount of work you've put into the site is more, the sense of your account being an anonymous barrier becomes less. Essjay faked his credentials, yes, but he did not misbehave. I have not seen a single edit of his that a responsible person who fully disclosed their identity would never make. Faking credentials is bad, yes, but the solution to that is to force people to verify any credentials they do claim to have. Not to force everyone to disclose their identity. -Amarkov moo! 01:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay did misbehave. He blocked me indefinitely and without warning, for making a legal threat that not only did I not actually make, but was such a newbie at the time that I didn't even know there was a policy against in the first place (details on my TALK page). He continued this even when apprised of the situation. It took another sysop (one who had voted against Essjay at Essjay's bureaucrat hearings, sensing too-rapid advancement) to undo the damage. I also watched Essjay (after becoming a bureaucrat) threaten to de-sysop somebody for removing a "nominations open" wikitag from their own userpage; Essjay took that as a matter of personal defiance to Himself and Wikipedia. Other instances of his problems are rapidly going down the memory hole with the deletion of the logs of Essjay's activities, as "irrelevant" now that he's gone. Eventually it will be received wisdom that Essjay was the Perfect Editor who was nevertheless Crucified to Save Us All at Wikipedia, having been betrayed by a kiss and making a sacrifice, because he wouldn't answer The New York Pilate straight out, about being the King of the Editors. Give it time. SBHarris 04:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
It's Policeman's Logic: If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Ekantik talk 03:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Hardly policeman's logic, as the admins are the de facto police, with some believing that they should be a law unto themselves. // Internet Esquire 05:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say Essjay didn't misbehave. He wasn't perfect. What I did say was that he didn't misbehave any more than people who did revealed their real identities have. -Amarkov moo! 04:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
More to the point, what he did do wrong had nothing whatsoever to do with his ability to be an administrator. We did not make him an admin because he claimed to be a professor, we made him an admin for the work he did on Wikipedia. Other than saving face, this accountability proposal does nothing to fix any of our administrative problems. --tjstrf talk 07:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that the claim of being a professor did play a big part is making him the admin. I don't remember what the RfA requirements were like at the time but when he stood for it he had around 310 main space edits, some 75% of which were rvvs, adding tags and such. A person with such an article space record would fail today because of the lack of main space work. Even now, he has only 1300 odd article edits most of which are rvvs, merge, afd removal and so on. Tintin 08:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I doubt a single admin promoted before about mid-2005 would have been promoted today. IIRC, average edit count at promotion was around 800 total edits. -Amarkov moo! 15:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] subject matter experts

It is not unknown for them to make mistakes; it is not unknown for them to have extremely idiosyncratic views; it is not unknown for them to be overbearing; it is not unknown for them to extend the area they claim expertise in. True theologians have been known to disagree very sharply, and WP is not a place for them to argue about their relative standing. I think the naive proposal on the article page is unworkable.

And unnecessary. If the credentials on on the users page, that's enough. As far as I can tell from people I do recognize, most of those with doctorates or faculty appointments in WP conceal the fact--sometimes to the extend of blank user pages. I think this is not due to inverse snobbery, but to earlier times when such expertise was openly disregarded and even condemned as uncollaborative. There seems to have been a recent trend to do otherwise, and I notice more people are giving their formal credentials under their real names, and sometimes using other names to edits articles that are of only personal interest.
An entry that lists a true name and year and university for a phd can very easily be verified, at least within the US-Europe universities listed in Proquest. It will either be there, or not. When one comes across degrees from outside this area, or from diploma mills, then problems arise.
Most current academic appointments can be verified from official web pages. People may claim a few conference talks to be formal presentations, but the can not claim on their university web page that they hold a higher academic rank than they actually have. Some older people do not have web pages, and some retired people are not listed in online university pages. But if they have any publications, the journal will at least have the university name. People don't lie about this, because the editors do check.
Confirming that it is not a case of impersonation is harder. I could choose to adopt the name of any of my senior colleagues who I know would not be reading WP, and use their degrees and positions. its quite a risk, because in any normal academic subject, people will know what's wrong. If Essjay had given university names and thesis titles, he would have been detected at once--in fact, he would have probably not been tempted to such deception.
There is nothing necessarily wrong with a person of his true status holding a responsible position--on Citizendium, noted for its supposed academic snobbery, on the of the most respected policymakers (about = our bureaucrat) is a college sophomore. I would trust his judgement more than anyone else around the place. And thus I agree completely with the comment that tjstrf has posted just before me.DGG 07:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No one should ever have to reveal his/her real name to the entire Wikipedia community

I have problems with much of this proposal, though I agree with some pieces of it. However, there are two parts that I find particularly unconscionable, though I believe this was just oversight on the creator's part.

1. I can understand that the Wikimedia Foundation may have a legitimate interest in collecting the RL identities of people in positions of power. However, no one (and especially not an ArbCom member) should be forced to reveal his or her name to the Wikipedia community at large. Why? Well, simply, there's just too much information available out there. There are unscrupulous people in the Wikipedia community who would go digging into a person's past life and could dredge up some very personal details about it (say, perhaps, that he/she claimed to be sexually assaulted, or had a criminal record, or whatever). When I give my name and social security number to a prospective employer, if he/she misuses it, I have legal recourse. Here, that's not the case. Everyone's done things they aren't proud of, but there's a difference between a legitimate need to verify identity and putting someone out there to get torn apart by the community, particularly if he/she makes unpopular decisions on ArbCom. (BTW: I would find it completely reasonable to say that Checkusers, oversights, and stewards (and MAYBE ArbCom members, but not bureaucrats) should be required to disclose their names and information to WMF and undergo Criminal Record Background Checks before getting such privileges. Certain criminal offenses should disqualify a member from receiving such privileges.)

2. Certifying Subject Matter Experts would create a two-tiered editorial structure in Wikipedia, one that I believe is antithetical to the Wiki process. "Ordinary" editors would be afraid to edit a section written by an SME, even if they see a legitimate improvement to be made. It would discourage people from being bold and would compartmentalize editors into sections. Everyone needs to cite a source for information added to an article, no matter how many credentials they have or claim to have. "Trust me, I'm an expert" doesn't cut it. Honestly, now that the Essjay situation has come to light, people are aware not to take asserted credentials at face value. "Fool me once" and all that. I think a policy that states that asserting a credential to gain advantage in a content dispute is a no-no solves the problem handily.

Anyway, I'm not sure where this is going to go, but I do hope you take my concerns into account. I think the workplace/volunteer analogy is a false one to this situation, and that identity verification information, if it happens at all, needs to be restricted to WMF employees/board members/trustees and then only on a need-to-know basis. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 08:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I know several technology scientists who were terrified of the Unabomber. They were very careful with their mailing addresses and phone numbers and were even wary of publishing in certain journals. Gwen Gale 22:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

I'm an admin here. What difference would it make to anything I did here or anything the community could do with me (desysopping, blocking, ...) if someone (or everyone) knew my name, age, credentials, address, or whatever it is you want me to disclose? If I'm a good admin, there is no problem anyway, so my personal info isn't needed. But what if I'm a bad admin, going around deleting front page articles, blocking good editors, or whatever terrible things I'm capable of? In what way would you having my info change anything? Would I be contacted? Reported to the authorities? Mentioned in the press? What good would that do? I don't see any benefit to Wikipedia, its editors or its admins by having this info available. Anyone can edit, expertise is not requested, and we always have to assume good faith. Admins are community-respected users, that's all: our opinion isn't worth anything more in content disputes, we aren't chosen for expertise, nationality, age, education, sex, religion, or whatever other real-life characteristic. There is no problem to be solved (there hasn't been a case of admin abuse that would have been prevented by revealing personal info, the EssJay story is something completely different), and on the other hand the solution would potentially decrease the number of admins (and it's not like there are way too many of them now). So I firmly oppose this proposal until I get convinced that this would have a net benefit for Wikipedia. I do agree, however, that for the truly sensitive functions (checkuser, oversight perhaps) and PR functions (spokesperson, legal counsel, ...), it may be better if the foundation would know the real life identity of those persons. And I do also agree that if someone (no matter if it is an editor, admin, ...) uses his credentials in a content dispute, he or she should be willing and able to give evidence for these credentials or else shut up about them: in the end, all the credentials in the world won't help yuou if you haven't got the verifiable sources to back your statements. Fram 13:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree. I've been a Wikipedian for about three years, and just over a year ago I became an admin. I like to think I've done a good job as as editor and as an admin. Not spectacularly good and not horribly bad. Average. All the while I've worked as anonymously as I can be on the internet. I've once made some claim to credentials, here. I've dealt with some tough articles, such as Armenian Genocide and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. I've blocked countless people, many indefinite. All the while I've been as anonymous as I can be on the internet. How would it serve Wikipedia if I were to disclose my real-life identity? What good could come of it? How would admins who disclose their rl identity to the foundation be better admins than admins who wish to remain anonymous? Why should they get more tools? AecisBrievenbus 19:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Better idea

Why not just desysop bad admins? This avoids all of the privacy (not to mention child-protection law) implications of this knee-jerk reaction. Cynical 14:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Fram 14:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Very good idea. Abeg92contribs 23:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed and it's what's supposed to happen already. Maybe we should just desysop Essjay (or just debureaucrat him) to provide a disincentive for this kind of dishonesty. I know he's left but that's what should happen in my opinion and if he did come back, he should need to go through a RFA again. --WikiSlasher 07:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This policy is absolutely wrong

This policy is fundamentally wrong and contrary to the basic spirit of Wikipedia, and I intend to fight it all the way. Although I have no problem in principle with admins having to disclose their real name to the Foundation, what this will lead to is RfA votes such as Oppose - he's only 16 and doesn't have a degree. This totally destroys the spirit of Wikipedia, and will create an "overclass" of "superior" Wikipedians who are older and/or have academic qualifications, while those who are younger and/or less qualified will be denied adminship, however trustworthy, intelligent and active they are. I would have no problem with requiring admins to disclose their real name and contact details to the Foundation, confidentially, after they are sysopped. But if you have to give out your name, age, credentials (if any) and life experience during RfA, many users will have a knee-jerk reaction of "He/she's only a teenager!" or "He/she doesn't have a job in real life!" or "No degrees!", and Wikipedia will be ruined for ever. I will go so far as to say that, if this policy is approved, I will leave Wikipedia. Walton Vivat Regina! 15:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An article of possible interest- Wikipedia:Honesty

Insomuch as this proposal is at least in part a reaction to the Essjay situation, I would like to note that there is also an effort to craft a community consensus regarding the role of honesty on Wikipedia. The text is at Wikipedia:Honesty and is under active development, further input and thoughts on the subject are requested. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bureaucrat/Checkuser/Oversight/ArbCom

Having this kind of hard-line "verification" may put people off becoming one of the above. Just because someone wants to help out a little more and dedicate more of their time and efforts, why should they be any less anonymous? --Sagaciousuk (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I sense an anti-freelancer and anti-developing countries bias

This proposal seems to demean self-employed people. In one case, it is implied we don't want self-employed people to be administrators. ("So that we don't find 24 year-old self-employed chronic liars being given broad administrative powers...") It is also implied that self-employed people have unreasonable expectations of privacy. ("You don't like this much invasion of your privacy? You must be self-employed in the real world, then, right? Otherwise, suck it up and turn in your CV.") I could be reading tone that isn't there, so please inform me, and clarify the proposal, if I am wrong.

If I am right, however, I would have to say that I find this highly offensive. Freelancing is a great opportunity for people who would otherwise have far less opportunity, people in India and other developing countries who are at least lucky enough to have internet access.

For that matter, this entire proposal seems to have a first-world bias. For one thing, the whole emphasis on credentials implies that those who have the opportunity to get a good education are somehow better than everyone else. Many people in developing countries cannot get that kind of education. Even in first-world countries, there are still a number of people who do not get great education because they simply cannot afford it. Also, many of the "real world" examples are really first-world examples.

I really do find this offensive.

— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is driven by citations to "credible" sources, which usually gain their "credibility" in exactly the way you disparage (publications in first-world literature, degrees from first world educational institutuions). So the whole Wikipedia enterprise must offend you, being as how it pays first homage to THAT (not truth). What I don't quite understand is why you're so upset about suggestions that will help put Wikipedia editors on more of an equal footing (should they be able to prove their backgrounds) with the credentialled authorities they are now dependent on for reference under WP:ATT. SBHarris 02:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no intent to make academic credentials a requirement of any process of wikipedia. There is some discussion that those claiming credentials should be required to fully disclose them in a verifiable way, but there is no intent to give any extra power to those who claim credentials verified or not. Mandatory identification and verification of either held credentials or identity will still not be required for general editors under any scheme so far proposed, nor should they.
You do have a point there there may be some first-world-bias in verifying identity for admin, and I agree it should be important that any identity verification system address these potential problems. I think there's already a substantial first-world-bias in the current administration system anyway, and it would be a bad thing to further entrench it. --Barberio 02:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Sbharris - referencing is good because anyone with internet access can find online sources. Current Wikipedian experts are often able to get their material published off-wiki, and cite that. User:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification is okay, though rather sad. This proposal suggests making identity verification required for any position admin and above, rather than basing the position on our portfolios here on Wikipedia.
You realise the job interview process is not the same in all countries, or even for all professions and employers within one country? Not to mention elance.
So you want to prove a person is who they say they are? According to UNICEF, about one third of births every year are unregistered. [1] Such people are sufficiently under-represented on Wikipedia without making it impossible for them to become administrators. (Actually, the problems of undocumented people tend to be much worse than not becoming administrators on Wikipedia, but I really do not see that as an excuse.)
And for above administrator levels, someone actually has to meet you? Are we trying to exclude people, in Sudan for instance, who might not live in reasonable transportation distance of any other Wikipedians?
— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
My heart goes out to little Hamid, alone with his laptop and his cattle, in the wilds of the Sudan. He can't get a birth certificate, and he's far from any other user of Wikipedia. And yet, even though a faceless waif, he burns for the powers of the Checkuser function, to be a bureaucrat, and to have the ability to block whole ranges of vandal IP's. And to be able to desysop the uncivil! If only Jimbo and those heartless Americans could understand the problems of the world's undocumented dispossessed! SBHarris 03:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
To a certain extent, the root causes of these biases are not in Wikipedia's grasp to attempt to correct. Some special allowances may well be made for people in these circumstances, but they would depend entirely in individual circumstances. --Barberio 03:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, poor little Hamid. Why, the odds of having poor little Hamid wanting those rights would be something like one in a million! Totally absurd. Impossible. Stupid trolling at best. Hardly worth the effort to think ab....
Oh wait... even by those odds, we'd still have 5-10 hamids by next year.
Alright, perhaps we need to adjust our position just slightly... O:-) --Kim Bruning 06:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I feel better now. However, the proposal really should be fixed to get rid of the blocks for people like Hamid, not use "real world" examples that are really first world examples, and stop implying that there is something wrong with being self-employed. With about 1/3 of births not being registered,[2] and 6.6 billion people in the world, then assuming that the rate of registration has stayed constant, that makes 2.2 billion people without birth certificates. Of course, one would expect that the rate of registration has probably gone up, so it is probably more people that that. Think of it like China and India put together. When you have that many Hamids, the chances that a few of them will become Wikipedians increases drastically. Using Kim's "one in a million" estimate, that would be 2,200 Hamids, but perhaps "one in a million" is too high.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 07:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Brandt's wet dream come true

Actually, you can already get vetted information on all (or most) wikipedia admins. In the interests of WP:BEANS I shan't mention the location.

Due to the frankly murderous view of Mr. Brandt's activities, I think this proposal is probably a Very Bad Idea (tm). :-P

--Kim Bruning 23:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Makes you think how sad Brandt must be if Wikipedia is the sort of thing he has wet dreams about. ;-) Ekantik talk 17:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This may end up being worse than the Essjay scandal

In my opinion, going public with user, even admin/bureucrat ID's would be a BAD idea, in my opinion. Anyone who edits wikipedia enough knows that there are enough loonies out there that the possibility of stalking is not minute. Any risk-reward analysis I can think of, outside of someone with a severe case of Type-A personality, would show that the risks of being stalked in "real-life" outside wikipedia far outweighs the "goodwill" benefit of credibility. If you think fallout to Essjay was bad, wait until someone gets hurt because of a wiki dispute. It will happen, if given the opportunity, similar to the issues myspace has. I am somewhat ambivalent about ArbCom; perhaps needing them to identify themselves to the Board, Jimbo, or Danny may be sufficient, but for any lesser "wiki-position", I am very much against anything that would require identification.

Perhaps a "Web of trust" type idea ala PGP/GPG or Thawte is the way to go.

-- Avi 02:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I edit under my real name on controversial topics, and other than occasional grumbling, there's no problem. Online stalkers you block; physical stalkers you send to jail. No big deal. Yes, someday somebody might punch somebody in the nose. There are ways to deal with that. --John Nagle 17:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
But until the judicial due process works, do we want ABC headlines "WIKIPEDIA ARBITER STALKED BY DISGRUNTLED USER"? While less likely than an Essjay incident, the fallout is much worse, and in my opinion the overall risk is greater.
As an aside, I've codified some of my thoughts here: User:Avraham/Wiki of Trust. -- Avi 18:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved the credentials text to Wikipedia:Credentials

I've moved over the text about credentials to Wikipedia:Credentials in interests of keeping the issues separated into that of Handling Credentials, and handling Administrator Accountability. --Barberio 02:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement from Anthere

There's a statement from the foundation chair over at Wikipedia_talk:Credentials#Comment which is relevant to this discussion. --Barberio 13:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time for rejected?

There have been numerous complaints on the talk page about virtually every single point of this proposal, with most of them being not along the lines of "this wording needs improved" but rather "this idea is fundamentally flawed". I believe that, pending a complete rewrite to address these concerns (at which point it would essentially be a new proposal), this proposal is {{rejected}}. --tjstrf talk 19:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It's far too premature to declare this as rejected. For a start many of the complaints have made the assumption that we'd require all admins to publicly identify themselves, which is not the idea at all. at the moment the proposal is only to require identification if you're accepted as a mid to high level administrator, and that information is to be held in private and have no impact on being accepted as an administrator. The *only* level where the proposal requires disclosing your identity in public is that where you would make official rulings. (ie, ArbCom) So while there have been a lot of objections, they're not informed objections, as they're not referring to what the proposal actually proposes.
Additionally, as mentioned above, the Chair of Wikimedia Foundation has stated some support for the idea of requiring high level administrators to provide identification.
I seriously believe that this is a make-or-break decision on the part of Wikipedia, and allowance of the satus-quo will damage both Wikipedia's credibility and it's long-term viability as a project. --Barberio 02:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Mid to high level administrator? --Kim Bruning 04:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Checkusers and so forth. WAS 4.250 04:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd fully support this proposal if it were changed so that only checkusers, oversight, developers, and stewards had to reveal their identity. But that won't be resolved if people have to argue against admins having to do so as well. Actually, maybe this should be branched completely so each seperate thing can suceed or fail by itself. -Amarkov moo! 05:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Amarkov. .V. [Talk|Email] 05:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Me too. --WikiSlasher 07:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Look, more things that don't solve any problem!

So, now, this is bundled with a new adminship level, completely identical to regular adminship, except with a couple restrictions on use. Why is this? To prevent 13 year olds from being able to abuse the tools badly, supposedly. This is a wonderful non-solution (13 year olds can become regular admins too, there's nothing prohibiting that), to a non-problem (none of our desysopped admins have been that young anyway). Other than that, wonderful idea. -Amarkov moo! 05:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. This isn't about 13 years old being more likely abusing tools. AFAIK that was simply an example of a bad headline (perhaps it was a bad idea to give such an example but anyway it was just an example) that may result from our current policy which some people feel is flawed. (The reality is, if a case when a 13 year old goes on a power trip it will probably get more headliness then if it was a 40 year old) Note this won't deny 13 year olds becoming admins, but it will mean 13 year olds who want to be come a high level admin need to reveal who they are. The idea here is we want to solve a potential problem before we actually encounter the problem. I for one think we should have had BLP before we had Seiglataher (sorry don't know how to spell it and lazy to Google) and I also think we should enforce copyright policy before we get sued. The primary issue here is a admin is quite a power tool and some people feel it should be more tightly regulated. Nil Einne 16:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] If this fails

IMHO an alternative is to have an optional real life identity verification (still keep it secret of course). Make it so it's not compulsory but it is a legitimate thing which people may consider. Some people may reject anyone who doesn't have a verified, other's may choose to reject only more borderline candidates (i.e. it will count but an exceptionally good candidate won't be rejected because of it), yet others may never consider it. In the end, perhaps the community as a whole may come to reject admins without a real life identity, perhaps they may come to ignore it or perhaps it's in between. Who knows? Nil Einne 16:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rejected

Judged by this talk page there obviously is not going to be consensus for this. This was noted by Tjstrf last week. WAS4.250 has removed the {{rejected}} tag and declined to give any reason for doing this. I suspect we're up for another round of "hey, there's no consensus to reject and I like this page". See WP:POL which clearly indicates that it's the lack of consensus that makes a rejection, not the "consensus to reject". >Radiant< 10:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This proposal is the subject of an attempt to guage the community feelings on all the proposals brought forward in the wake of the Essjay scandal to try to improve wikipedia. Each proposal brings something different to the table and by contrasting the varying levels of support can give us an idea of where to go next in terms of drafting a proposal that will achieve consensus. That you misunderstand this process of information gathering (you added "voting is evil" as your input) perhaps explains your desire to treat this proposal as an isolated case. It is not an isolated case. It needs to be seen as part of the community's reaction to the Essjay scandal and the community's attempt to improve Wikipedia. Some parts of this may be useful in whatever proposal eventually achieves consensus. Other parts of it may be useful in illustrating what will not achieve consensus. WAS 4.250 11:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that creating a boatload of proposals in hurried response to a single incident is not the most effective way of making policy. It would be better to wait a few weeks for the moral panic to subside, and then see if there's actual need for any more legislation. >Radiant< 11:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

An attempt guage community support on this and related proposals is going on at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification. Please participate. Thank you. WAS 4.250 11:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  • So you're saying that, as a gauge of community support, you'll ignore the discussion and many valid arguments given on this talk page, in favor of a binary yes-no vote you started earlier today? That seems hardly a productive approach. >Radiant< 12:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Discussion > Voting. I would say this is rejected, and will add my own 'No way' into the discussion. It is a longstanding position that the WMF allows anonymous editing. Why should users have less rights then anons, with no more responsibility other then the ability to use some restricted tools to help the project? Prodego talk 01:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I also reject the policy, it goes against the wiki-philosophy. I think most people will not accept this. --WikiSlasher 05:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)