Wikipedia talk:Administrator accountability

It pretty much goes without saying that this is a controversial proposal. That said, it is a serious proposal and I would like to see a healthy discussion about the possible pros and cons of implementing it. Some of the ideas are not my own; the entire page is a compilation of ideas borrowed from others, regardless of what the page history suggests. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

No, I am not going to expect our admins to identify themselves to the foundation. It makes them no more accountable than they are now, and creates privacy concerns. One of the reasons I devote my time to Wikipedia is that it allows people to contribute anonymously. I see no reason for this invasion of privacy. I am not about to endorse removing the sysop bit from a bunch of admins for no reason other than their desire to keep private information private. I understand that the proposal is that only the foundation would know this information, but Wikipedia is not exactly great at keeping secrets.

Even if this were to go through the idea of retro-actively applying it to our existing admins seems contrary to the spirit of the project. You should not tell people that they have the right to be anonymous and then one day say they need to identify themselves or lose their position.

The proposal page does not give any reason for doing this, nor does it indicate what existing problems it would solve. What exactly is this going to solve? Have there been any issues with admins that identifying information would have prevented? ^Chillum 18:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's my primary question : why? Increased accountability is ostensibly the goal of requiring administrators to identify to the Foundation, but exactly how is this supposed to make an administrator more accountable? Will the Foundation be contacting administrators offline if they cause problems? Will they use the identities to pursue legal remedies for egregious violations? Again, my main question : Why would the Foundation want our identities, what would they be doing with them, and how will this do anything to increase administrators' accountability? Shereth 18:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In a lot of ways, this proposal is purely principle-based. There's no real effective means of ensuring that people identify accurately—they can easily submit fake identification. But the greater principle here about accountability and responsibility is one to consider and think about. If you're going to give someone the "keys to the castle" (and the English Wikipedia is a quite a large, high-profile castle), shouldn't there be some sort of reciprocity there? Some sort of assurance, even if based in trust?

I think it's interesting that you state that one of the virtues of Wikipedia is the ability to contribute anonymously. That wouldn't be lost here. There would be a very small sacrifice in privacy for a thousand or so users (to one person) in exchange for the increased access, rights, and responsibilities that they have. You've no particularly made it a secret what your real name is. I edit under "MZMcBride." "Jimbo Wales," "Larry Sanger," "Manning Bartlett," "Kim Bruning," "David Gerard," et al. are all some our oldest users. Notice a trend? :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know - it strikes me as having no teeth and therefore no real impact. I'm not particularly interested in anonymity myself (I understand your response was primarily to Chillum but still), I couldn't care less if the Foundation had my real identity (I do have a Toolserver account and have gone through a similar process), so to me that objection is a non-starter. However, if I were intent on causing mischief , I'm not sure how "Oh wait, the Foundation has my real name!" is going to deter me. Particularly knowing that there isn't anything they intend to do with my identity. Shereth 18:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will submit my personal information when the Foundation wants to send me a pay-cheque. My reciprocity for their trust is the good work I do here. ^Chillum 18:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the Foundation does know my true identity due to my work at OTRS. My concerns about privacy is more about our other volunteer admins than myself. ^Chillum 18:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pros and cons of administrator identification

Arguments for:

administrators can see deleted edits, so they can see private information
This is largely mooted by WP:Revision deletion and WP:Oversight of deleted revisions.
administrators can see admin-l and its archives, which may contain private information

Arguments against:

Impractical
Will deter future admins
Not necessary/too much bureaucracy
Changing rules in the middle of the stream in a big way
Simply not necessary - the arguments for are insufficient on their face
Not the Wiki Way™
Pseudonymous identification with a username that is consistent over time, plus the available sanctions for violating rules which apply to editors not accounts, is almost always sufficient to hold the administrator accountable.
In cases that are serious enough that pseudonymous identification may be insufficient to hold the person completely accountable, it's not hard to de-sysop an admin, reverting his status to that of registered editor plus any other minor privileges he had e.g. rollbacker. We do not require editors to give their real name.

All in all, I'm against such identification, barring additional strong arguments for. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In some ways, I see it akin to the practice of warning vandals. You know it's unlikely to do much realistically, but you do it anyway out of sheer principle. Do you think that's a valid argument? That is, can something be done for almost purely ideological reasons? And what cost, I suppose anyone would ask. You mention the risk of losing admins, but is that an actual concern or just a theoretical one? Is "changing the rules midstream" really something that should get in the way here (or anywhere)? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While "sheer principle" has merit and probably should be added to the "for" list, it would need to be balanced against the implied principle that anyone, even non-registered users, can edit anonymously or pseudonymously. The other groups which already give up their anonymity do so because there is enough weight to the argument in favor of identification and/or a legal requirement to do so. Even with "sheer principle" and "the principle that editors should be able to edit anonymously/pseudonymously" in the for and against lists, I would still be against the requirement. I believe there is an actual concern. There have been times in my life where I would not offer my services if this were a requirement, and I expect I'm not the only Wikipedian to say that. Although this is no longer the case for me it likely is the case for some would-be admins. As far as changing the rules midstream, I think if this went through you would see some admins resign or simply stop editing under their administrator account to avoid compliance, and you would see a small number others resigning not to avoid compliance but on principle.

All in all, none of the things I mentioned and none of the things in your reply are "show stopper" arguments for or against identification, but their total weight is more than enough for me to oppose this. Also, some of the arguments I made, such as "The Wiki Way," carry little or no weight in my mind, but might for other editors. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose

I have to say that this strikes me as a poor solution in search of a problem, but I don't want to react reflexively, so I'll just ask this: What, if anything, would be done with the identification data? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of my replies (above) on this talk page have sought to clarify this. It probably needs integration into the main projectspace page, though. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've responded to my specific question, which is: what would be done with the identification data? Would the information be locked in a file cabinet forever? Publicly disclosed in some specific event (and if so what event)? Available for use by some or other Foundation functionary (who and what and why)? Or what? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see the answer. Which existing problems would be solved if this information was available? Have we ever needed to take off-wiki action against an admin? Would we use this information to expose who it was who acted inappropriately as an admin? Is it so that the foundation can decide certain people should not be admins? Why is the contribution history of a user not identification enough? I guess what I am asking is what does this hope to accomplish? ^Chillum 22:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The identification data would be used in the exact same way that the data collected for the other listed groups would be used, I would imagine. It's my understanding that the data collected for OTRS users or Toolserver users hasn't ever been released to any third party, though it's collected just the same. I'm having some difficulty understanding what the distinction between the various groups is, really. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So... what would the purpose actually be then? Just to collect and store? What would this accomplish? ^Chillum 23:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what does it accomplish currently for the five or so groups that have their data collected? We all agree that the data can (and has, actually) been forged. Yet the Wikimedia Foundation continues to collect it regardless. Due to the limitations of identification (for all groups) currently, I think you the most you can say is that it's an ideological thing, and one that I'm not sure you're opposed to (as you've identified). Does that sound reasonable? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone ever wants to sue an admin, it makes it that much easier for the WMF to hang them out to dry? –xeno^talk 23:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems like this achieves... nothing. At all. Identifying editors would serve a purpose (i.e. identifying experts - very un-Wikipedia but it would serve a purpose); identifying admins (as long as the selection process and knowledge required is all on-wiki) appears to be entirely useless, unless it can be made more-or-less fraud-proof, in which case it would prevent admin socking. But that isn't likely. So, useless, yes? Rd232 ^talk 23:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think MZ's point is this: The purpose is the same as the purpose for other user rights groups that are subject to the same standard, lacking in practical necessity as some might judge them to be. It could be on principle alone that such a requirement is imposed on other groups, but it is nevertheless imposed on them. MZ is suggesting that admin work be viewed as just as worthy of that principle. If you disagree that adminship is anywhere near the level of other groups that currently require the identification, that's fine; but challenging the premise alone of requiring information based on there being no practical use for it doesn't seem fair, if you think the requirement is warranted for those other groups. Equazcion (talk) 23:55, 8 Dec 2009 (UTC)

The responsibility and powers of an admin are limited to on-wiki. OTRS agents act as a representative of the Foundation's official contact, checkusers deal with private information and must meet the privacy policy, arbcom can act as representatives of the foundation's authority. These groups have very good reasons for collecting such data, admins do not share these reasons. If the only reason being presented is that these other groups do the same thing, then that reason does not seem to stand on its own. ^Chillum 00:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those are vague reasons though, and could be said to apply to administrators too. The viewing or disclosure of deleted pages could be a liability, administrators could be viewed as representatives of the foundation; additionally access to interface pages is also a liability. The question to ask is, how does providing identification help ensure the proper use of tools or authority given to those groups? Especially considering the concern voiced here that the information provided could be forged, the argument that the requirement for admins would serve no practical purpose could be made just as easily for those other groups. Equazcion (talk) 00:48, 9 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Further comments

(From Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).)

The connection between accountability and identification seems pretty obvious to me. The terms are used interchangeably often. But if needed, rationale could probably be borrowed from other user group policies like checkuser and arbcom which require identification for the purposes of accountability. This is just a proposal to regard "administrator" as "just as critical" as those. Equazcion (talk) 19:26, 8 Dec 2009 (UTC)

In Plain English, accountability != identification. You can have either without the other. A person can be held accountable by having a "stick" to use against them if they don't follow the rules. This stick can be de-adminship, blocking, parole terms, involuntary mentorship, or what-not. You can also have identification without accountability. I know my neighbor keeps a messy house and I know his real name, but he is accountable to nobody for that act, and nothing I do or say can make him hire a maid unless he wants to.

On Wikipedia, all editors are accountable for following WP:RULES and may be called to task when they don't, assuming their actions aren't covered by WP:IAR. This goes for administrative actions as well.

In rare cases, such as harassment or threats that rise to the level that real-world police or courts get involved, the editor may be subject to having his IP address subpoenaed and his ISP may get a subpoena for subscriber information. That level of accountability is sufficient to cover the vast majority of editors and administrators. At this point, it's outside the scope of Wikipedia policy. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, keep in mind that I'm not necessarily advocating a change; I'm just explaining the proposal, which is, to ratchet up the degree of accountability for administrators to a level closer to that which we require of checkusers and arbcom. The relation of accountability to identification is that people can't really feel or be held accountable if they're allowed the comforting anonymity that their user account affords them. Or rather, viewing anonymity and accountability on a sliding scale: the more anonymous a person is allowed to remain, the less they will feel, and the less easily they may be held, personally accountable. The kind of accountability david is referring to above is accountability more of the user account than of the person, which some might say isn't real accountability at all. "Do something wrong and your anonymous online identity might be subject to technical sanctions, and will lose credibility..." It's more than a little different when you're talking about people's actual names etc. that become attached to their actions. If someone wants to add this to the essay, that's fine, and maybe I'll do it myself if need be; I just figured it was obvious. This logic is already in place for arbcom and checkuser etc. after all. Equazcion (talk) 22:40, 8 Dec 2009 (UTC)

What I think has not been adequately explained is in what way would requiring administrators to identify themselves to the Foundation elevate their degree of accountability to that of checkusers/arbcom/etc? As far as I understand it, checkusers and the like must identify to the Foundation not to make them accountable for their actions, but as a legal necessity due to the fact that these users are privy to highly sensitive information, such as IP addresses of contributors. It may, in some situations, become necessary for the Foundation to know the real-world identities of users with access to this information. The same cannot be said for what administrators have access to. Shereth 22:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the practical implications would be, if any, so maybe that does need clarifying. Nevertheless that's not necessarily the only reason it's required in the case of checkusers etc. If I needed to submit personally identifiable information in the process of accepting a responsibility, I think I'd feel the weight of that responsibility a whole lot more than if I were allowed to remain anonymous. The psychological impact alone of having to reveal the information could be a good reason to require it (could be; I'm still not advocating, just explaining). Equazcion (talk) 23:01, 8 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I've added this question to the essay, and await an answer from the author. Equazcion (talk) 23:17, 8 Dec 2009 (UTC)

The psychological impact alone of having to reveal the information is a good reason to not require it. ^Chillum 00:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think admins feeling added weight of responsibility for their actions is a bad thing, could you explain why you think that? If there is some other psychological impact you think the revelation would have, and that it would be negative, please explain that too. Equazcion (talk) 00:53, 9 Dec 2009 (UTC)

One reason would be that we are volunteers that are regularly abused. Our privacy protects us from much of this abuse outside of Wikipedia. The Foundation is great and all, but Wikipedia is not famous for its ability to keep secrets. Privacy is not given, it is achieved. The admins are doing a tough thankless job and many of them started using this project with the expectation of being anonymous. I have yet to see a good reason to alienate these people or to add more weight on their shoulders. ^Chillum 16:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that existing admins were not subject to this requirement when they accepted the position is a good point. Maybe the proposed requirement could just apply to newly-appointed admins, from the time the proposal is accepted (if it does get accepted), or retroactive to some more recent date. I can't really picture the reasons behind the proposal being seen as so important that we would need to force all existing admins to choose between submitting to the requirement or getting de-opped. Equazcion (talk) 17:07, 9 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I the "psychological impact" is a very good reason to require this information. It will cause people to behave in a more responsible manner. Fear of repercussions for one's actions is a good thing. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 01:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bad thing, actually, given the amount of cranks many administrators have to deal with (some of us have been *forcibly* outed by JarlaxleArtemis thru /b/, myself included). The stick of harassment that can now follow you into real life a la H is enough reason why this is very bad. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 06:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added question

I've added a question based on the village pump proposals discussion, though I see now it's been partially answered above. Still it seems to be a common concern so maybe it should be answered within the essay. If the purpose of the proposed identity revelation is purely principle/psychologically-based, it might be helpful to spell that out for people. It won't necessarily be a detriment to the proposal, if other user groups are already subject to similar standards for those reasons alone. Equazcion (talk) 23:29, 8 Dec 2009 (UTC)

It is about as principle based as requiring identification from Checkusers/etc. Are you aware of a case where that information has done anything but serve as a deterrent? ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 01:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not. Equazcion (talk) 01:28, 9 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Move to close

Move to snow-close this as lacking community consensus. Is this motion too soon? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems far too soon to me. Discussion should continue. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 02:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to rename

Move to rename this to Wikipedia:Administrator identity registration. It fits the content much better. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about Wikipedia:Administrator identification? ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 02:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible, but "identification" can mean "is editor so-and-so and administrator." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Administrator Accountability is a poor title for this proposition. Revealing one's real name to the WMF would be a welcome but very limited step in the broader area of what most would construe as "accountability".--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Administrator identification," while a bit ambiguous, is less awkward than "Administrator identity registration" in my opinion. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like "administrator identity registration" better, because "administrator identification" sounds to me like requiring some kind of public disclosure. People understand "registration" to mean private submittal. Equazcion (talk) 19:46, 9 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Endnotes

I added endnotes giving the reasons why existing functionaries have to release their names. Please make corrections as needed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure there are specific legal reasons? If so, we should specify what they are because we need to consider whether administrators would/should also fall under the same legal reasons.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am not sure but I would like to know. There is a "general assumption" that anyone "speaking for the foundation" is subject to subpoenas, so that's a legal reason right there. The same could be said for private information, if the foundation were sued for release of private information all those who had access could be named individually as co-defendants, particularly information that never appeared on-wiki, e.g. email to arbcom-l. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 11:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than relying on speculation to determine the rationale and then using that rationale to back up opposition to this, I'd rather see some real info on this, if any is available. Otherwise, speculation could run both ways, and it makes me uncomfortable to see opposers putting theirs alone in the essay. Equazcion (talk) 11:48, 9 Dec 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, I've edited the endnotes so it's obvious that they need working on. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 11:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WMF agents are required to be 18 or over, so at a minimum proof of identity is needed to prove the age requirement is met. Technically the rest is pure speculation, yes - including the notion that it is used for any kind of "increased accountability". If the comments about the identification being required for legal purposes must be removed as speculative, then ought not the comments to the effect of "requiring identification increases administrator accountability and responsibility" be removed as speculative? Thus far no indication has been given as to how this statement is true. Shereth 14:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, the only individuals whose identity needs to be known to the Foundation as a matter of law are (1) Board of Trustees members and (2) paid employees. The requirement that Stewards, Checkusers, Oversighters, and more recently arbitrators identity may have been endorsed as worthwhile by legal counsel (I don't know that this is so but it seems plausible), but that is not the same as saying that it is legally required, and personally I've never been convinced that it serves much of a purpose. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (re Shereth) The only actual claim I can see currently is "Primarily, requiring identification increases administrator accountability and responsibility..." which could just be changed to "Primarily, requiring identification could increase administrator accountability...". This is a proposal, which entails a degree of speculation regarding the predicted result. That's different from speculating about why things are the way they are elsewhere currently, and using that to refute the prediction, at least when it comes to altering the essay itself. Equazcion (talk) 15:11, 9 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Very well. I don't want to come across as tendentious on this particular issue, but thus far none of the supporters of this proposal have put forward any reasons to believe that requiring identification to the Foundation will result in an increase in administrator accountability. I don't mind that the proposers wish to speculate that this will be the outcome. I even don't mind that they lack any firm evidence to back it up - but so far there hasn't been any cogent argument as to how this will happen. In fact the only justification for doing so has been that the Foundation requires it of other positions, without any insight as to why it is done for those other positions. I'm pretty certain that the Foundation requires paid employees to submit resumes and references when applying; perhaps we should expect the same of its unpaid volunteers? I'm not seriously suggesting this, but until some tangible reason for requiring admins to identify themselves other than "checkusers and stewards have to do it, why not admins", that idea comes across as justifiable as this proposal. Shereth 15:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in support of this proposal, but I'm also not against it. The claim that the requirement would at least make sense from a principle or psychological stance makes sense to me. I'm waiting to hear some more cogent rationale against it, but so far what I'm seeing are hasty and ill-considered attempts to quash it. Equazcion (talk) 15:32, 9 Dec 2009 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, the only cogent rationale working against this proposal is that it creates additional bureaucracy for no tangible benefit. I do not believe that requiring administrators to identify to the Foundation will cause any material harm any more than it will bring about any material benefit. My argument is less that it is harmful and more that it is useless, and that enacting new rules for their own sake is unecessary instruction creep and unecessary bureacracy that the system does not need. Shereth 15:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious if you think it's useless for the other groups who are currently required to identify. There seems to be a divergence somewhere between what are viewed as useful and useless identifications, and I'm trying to figure out why this divergence exists. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without knowing what the Foundation does/intends to do with the identifications provided to them, this is a rather difficult question for me to answer. If they're holding on to them for potential legal reasons (ie. in the case of subpoenas), then it is certainly not useless. If there is ever any intent to use the information to contact them offline, then it is not useless. If their reason for collecting that information is purely as a psychological deterrent, then yes I would consider it largely useless. Whatever rationale the Foundation has for it is not made obvious to us (at least, not insofar as I can tell), and therefore I cannot make an educated answer as to whether their doing so is useless. However, this is a new proposal and therefore it is (at least hypothetically) up to us to decide what would be done with this information, and based on what I have seen thus far, I can only conclude that collecting identities from administrators as a psychological deterrent/on principle only will be largely ineffective toward perpetuating any change, and therefore not worth the cost in terms of extra bureaucracy and instruction creep. Shereth 16:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (re Shereth, in conjunction with MZ's reply above): If it turns out that the identification requirement for some other groups is just as lacking in tangible benefits, then your rationale wouldn't hold up. We'd need to verify that somehow, if possible. Though if not possible -- ie. if the rationale isn't written anywhere and no one authorized can actually say definitively why the requirement exists -- then by default we would have to assume it's based on a principle, and one that could arguably apply to administrators just as easily. Equazcion (talk) 16:13, 9 Dec 2009 (UTC)

As stated above, it is my opinion that if the Foundation collects this data on principle alone, then it is my opinion that it is a waste of time and effort on their part, as well. That the Foundation does something on principle is not sufficient cause for us to follow suit on principle alone. Shereth 16:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sufficient cause, unless one agrees with the principle. It's a subjective choice, so you can definitely disagree with the principle. Nevertheless I just want to make the point that the many attempted objective and logical objections to this proposal seen thus far in the above sections are not so. Equazcion (talk) 16:26, 9 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Still, we are going on the assumption that "principle" is the rationale behind the requirement. However, I find it particularly telling that the Foundation requires this of Checkusers but has not seen fit to extend that requirement to Administrators and Bureaucrats. The reason behind this distinction is unclear to us, however I believe it supports the conclusion that the Foundation's reasoning for requiring identification from Checkusers does not apply to the B'crat/Admin group. Shereth 16:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I think I missed a part of your point - I seem to be stuck in argumentative mode. My apologies. I will concede that by and large the arguments of the opposition are of a subjective nature, but the same observation must be made of those in support; there have been no logical or objective arguments in favor of this proposal. If we are going to boil it down to a mere matter of principle, then I will simply state that I am not in agreement with that principle and thus cannot support this proposal. Shereth 16:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (this might not apply anymore given the last response I conflicted with, but I want to say it anyway for onlookers to consider): Without knowing their reasons, I see that as a weak argument. Maybe the foundation didn't see reason to enact a requirement on admins, or maybe they never even considered it. If we knew the reasons behind their requiring it for other groups, we (the community) could decide that those reasons apply to admins as well. Defaulting to a position of "the foundation hasn't done it, so they probably don't see the need and therefore we shouldn't either" is a rather thoughtless deferral. Equazcion (talk) 16:41, 9 Dec 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just by way of clarification, I never meant to imply "The foundation doesn't do it, so we shouldn't" as much as it was meant to counter the argument "The foundation does it, so we should". Basically what I was trying to get across is we should be deciding this for its own merits, and not what the Foundation does (or chooses not to do). Shereth 16:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And in response to the last comment: No problem. Disagreeing with the principle is a perfectly valid position. For myself, I agree with the principle, but am still undecided about the cost/benefit analysis of applying it to admins. Equazcion (talk) 16:45, 9 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that's what a good discussion is often about : agreeing that we disagree. For my part I hope you conclude that the cost to benefit ratio is simply too high, even if you agree with the principle - but that's just me :) I don't doubt your decision will ultimately be a well reasoned one. Shereth 16:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what does the Foundation think of this idea?

Before putting forth a proposal that obligates an uninvolved third party (in this case, the Wikimedia Foundation) to take an action that has inherent risks (i.e., receiving and retaining private and confidential information about project participants), I think the Foundation's opinion should be actively sought. Frankly, I don't see how a project can oblige the WMF to accept this information in the first place and, unless the WMF makes a clear statement of intent for its use, retention, and destruction, I would counsel people not to send their private information to the WMF unless they are indeed handling private information as defined in the Privacy policy (link at the bottom of every page).

I'm not seeing the accountability argument here; in what way does anyone see someone who's sent their identity to the WMF as being more accountable than an administrator or editor who has not done so? What behaviour is this foreseen as encouraging and preventing, and is there any tangible or even empirical evidence that those behaviours would be altered by mandatory identification? Is there any evidence that administrators whose identities are unknown to the WMF (or who have not self-identified in some way) are any less appropriate than those who have identified? Risker (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for getting foundation support, I think we can effectively hold off on those concerns tentative to actually seeing if the community supports the proposal, then go from there. The arguments for and against this having an effect on accountability have been presented and addressed exhaustively above, and I myself am not about to rehash it again here (though maybe someone else is willing). You could read through it and comment on something more specific though. Equazcion (talk) 17:33, 9 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Erm, no they haven't. There's a bunch of supposition unsupported by any facts up above. Whether or not an administrator self-identifies has never had an effect, as far as I can tell, on whether or not they have been sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee or been the subject of an RfC. Toolserver requires identification (and to whom? I don't think it's the WMF), but nobody seems to have researched the reason for that. The WMF Board has determined that individuals who have access to information covered under its privacy policy need to provide them with identification, but again it seems nobody has researched or verified with the WMF board why they have established that requirement. Before expanding this requirement, one ought to be able to understand why the current requirements are in place, and be able to demonstrate that there are clear and objective reasons for demanding that people turn over their private information in exchange for the privilege of being permitted to perform general housekeeping on a website that's desperate for housekeepers. Anyone think this is likely to improve the retention rate? Attract more candidates? Risker (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of the questions raised here about data retention and release are very good ones and ones that definitely ought to be answered, especially as identification is required currently for a variety of positions. In what scenarios would a CheckUser's name be released to the police? Or someone on OTRS? I'm not sure these questions have been answered anywhere. I do think the larger point is that we currently have no means of verifying most (if not all) of the information provided, yet people seem fine with giving up the information for various positions. I'm still trying to figure out what if any purpose the current identification practices serve and why there might be an issue with extending the model to administrators on one of the most-viewed sites in the world. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a person who has identified to the WMF as a condition of having access to permissions related to private data, I can tell you that the objective, as described to me, was to verify that I had met the age requirements. I do not have a toolserver account so have not identified for that project; however, I note that many individuals who do have toolserver accounts are not listed on the Meta Identification noticeboard, so I presume that the requirement is related to that specific project, which may or may not technically fall under the WMF umbrella. MZMcBride, perhaps you could make inquiries about their reasoning, and whether they are an official WMF project, and report back; I'm curious myself.

There is no age requirement for candidacy for enwiki administrators, and generally speaking I'm not convinced that age is necessarily a critical metric for eligibility (as opposed to maturity, which is assessed by the participants), as several excellent administrators received their tools prior to reaching the age of majority in their locale. I'm pretty sure that isn't the intent of this proposal anyway. Risker (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skype

Though I'm not convinced that the advantage of properly identifying admins would outweigh the disadvantages; I can see the advantages of properly identifying admins to the office, as there are various relatively hard to fake ways to do so that would enable us to reduce the chance of a desysopped admin regaining the bit in the future (unfortunately those relatively hard ways to fake would lose us a lot of admins). But this proposal wouldn't do that, and is a fudge or worse. It would be relatively easy for a Eco/PT to fake an ID - afterall it could be from any country..... So this wouldn't catch anyone clever enough to twice get through RFA. It would deter Privacy conscious people in totalitarian regimes, and it would make the honestly identifying admins that bit more vulnerable to litigious crazies out there. I can see the attraction of improving credibility of our admins, but I don't see an easily faked system as achieving that.

Now what I would suggest as an alternative is that admins and RFA candidatees introduce themselves to a group of admins via a Skype conference call, or at a meetup. No need to keep any legally accessible record, but a reasonable chance that if someone tried twice, someone would suss them out. Ϣere SpielChequers 17:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to sound trite, but what would a Skype call accomplish that the standard textual communications here on Wikipedia cannot? Shereth 18:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voices are harder to fake. If we want to prevent the same person becoming admin twice this would give us a chance of preventing that - not a 100% guarantee, but probably a much better chance than having a central office ask for identity. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A voice is harder to fake, but it is also harder to accurately remember someone's voice. Eco's last RFA was in January, and PT's successful run was in July. There were approximately 180 RFA's between them. I don't find it terribly likely that someone would be able to make a positive identification on a voice six months later, particularly when you've had to listen to that many candidates in the intervening time. Having worked in a call center, I can vouch for the fact that you forget the voices of the people you talked to pretty quick ... Shereth 18:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't pretend that this would be a foolproof system. But it wouldn't leave our indentities subject to the vagaries of the US legal system, and it would probably be harder to fool than emailing the office with a pdf of a fake ID. Ϣere SpielChequers 23:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defining accountability

I've read this over a couple of times now. I don't see anything mentioning exactly *what* administrators would be accountable for, or to whom they would be held accountable, and how identifying to the WMF would change their level of accountability. Please explain. Risker (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that one legitimate objective of some sort of identification system is to prove that you are a unique admin and not someone previously desysopped. I'm not sure I'd describe that as accountability though. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that isn't an accountability issue. I also don't see that as a WMF issue; it's strictly a project-specific issue. Risker (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another reason not to be an administrator

Hey I got a great idea! WT:RFA keeps having threads about the decline of administrator numbers (example. Solution? Demand administrators reveal their true identity. As a positive incentive to increase the number of admins, this is just (cough) flawless.

Instead of looking for ways to make life harder for administrators, we need to be looking for ways to make it easier.

In my opinion, this proposal is dead on arrival. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that logic. Just because we're looking to increase admin numbers doesn't mean any exploration of requirements meant to improve admin behavior should be immediately off the table. Equazcion (talk) 21:10, 9 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Let me be more clear than. If I were interested in becoming an administrator, the fact that I would have to give my identity to the Foundation in order to do so would be a 1000X factor against even considering running. You volunteer to be an administrator, to get the shit kicked out of you by editors all over the project, and in addition to passing the insane requirements of RfA and enduring all the crap that comes with being an administrator, you also have to give up your anonymity? Thanks, no, I'll pass. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so you're saying you don't like the idea? Equazcion (talk) 21:22, 9 Dec 2009 (UTC)
Let me be more clear about why I'm losing patience here. This is the latest in a line of arguments that feel like the result of people looking at the proposal, having the emotional reaction of "I don't like this", and then looking for ways to argue against it. They don't tell us why they simply don't like it in the first place. Your second comment in which you abandoned the logic (and sarcasm) of of your original post was actually the more honest one. You don't like the proposal because you think admins have it hard enough as it is. Fine. If more people said that to begin with it would probably have preempted a lot of the exchanges that had to occur on this page. Equazcion (talk) 21:36, 9 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I did say in my first post "Instead of looking for ways to make life harder for administrators, we need to be looking for ways to make it easier." --Hammersoft (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Equazcion, people are not just saying "I don't like this", they are giving some very good reasons. Reasons like privacy, and a lack of need. ^Chillum 01:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point wasn't what they were saying, but their motivation for saying it. But those two particular reasons are fine. I was referring to certain other comments and general tendentiousness. I've seen it before, someone proposes something, others get scared and jump to a "this must die and i won't consider anything to the contrary" attitude. It's rather disgusting. I'm not even advocating this proposal. I'm pissed on principle. But there's really nothing more that needs to be said about that here. Equazcion (talk) 01:38, 10 Dec 2009 (UTC)

US courts

If the Foundation collected this information, and a US court ordered them to give it up then that is what the Foundation would be legally required to do. I am not from that country, and my own country has much higher standards regarding the surrender of personal information. I really don't want my information to be subject to the US legal system which is far more capable of forcing organisations to give up private information than the legal system I enjoy. If the Foundation does not know the information then they cannot be required to surrender it. ^Chillum 23:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

further to chillums question, would any else, lawyer etc, be able to force the information out of the foundation should they wish to bring legal action against one of us?--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chillum, you use personal pronouns all through your comment, and yet the WMF already has your information according to your post below. You have already given it to them. Your information is already accessible to the US legal system. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

maybe so, but mine isn't, same for a lot of admins, beyond this question I have no objection to the idea.--Jac16888 ^Talk 05:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jac16888 said it well. Just because I have put myself in this position does not mean my concerns are not still valid in regards to the admins who have not. ^Chillum 05:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll for administrators reaction to this?

I think it would be interesting to see a poll asking current administrators whether they would resign adminship or not in the face of having to provide their identity to the Foundation. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The foundation already knows my identity due to my work at WP:OTRS. However if even one good admin is desysoped for refusing to give up their privacy I would likely devote my time to a project that respects privacy and anonymity. I chose this project because of its ideals, which include privacy, and if those ideals go away I probably will too. ^Chillum 17:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hear, hear. I love the justification for this proposal: "Because somebody, somewhere, might want to know, even though we have no idea what use this information is, nor how it will be kept, nor who will keep it."</sarcasm>. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't worry you that this info is already regularly collected and still nobody seems to be able to find the answers to those questions? :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Amen Chillum. Amen. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would conscientiously object and not provide the information. –xeno^talk 17:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't give a rat's ass. @harej 01:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with harej. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason that giving the WMF my meatspace identity would make me a more accountable admin, and without good reason I don't want to have to trust them with my information. Fences&Windows 02:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the specifics of this proposal, I think it would be of great benefit to the project, in terms of reinforcing a professional attitude and deflating the MMORPGish one, if administrators were required to edit under their real names. That said, I would not personally be willing to be an administrator under those conditions. Skomorokh 03:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By that token, everyone who wants to pass comment on the actions of these real-name administrators should be similarly required to edit with their real name. Daniel (talk) 04:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So people can edit anonymously or pseudonymously (a WMF foundation principle) but they should not be permitted to voice opinions? Risker (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - (e/c) I don't follow your logic here. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure I understand you Daniel. In my imagined scenario of administrators (and other functionaries) operating under their real names, those such as myself who would rather not identify themselves would be free to edit and comment as they wished, but would by choice rule themselves out of positions of responsibility. Skomorokh 05:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It would strike me as very unfair to require people to identify themselves publicly and have to edit under their real names (opposed to simply allowing them to volunteer their real names if they wanted to), and then allow users who are not accountable in real life and cannot be affected by what they say have an open slather to attack them. It would make it untenable to win discussions against people, particularly malicious people, who abuse the fact that they are anonymous while their opponent isn't, to say things which will unfairly tarnish their reputation and real name, and then have their unfair statements against the real-name-using person archived publicly for everyone to view, all while that person hides behind a pseudonym. Too many Wikipedia administrators have had their real lives and Google presences screwed with in the past, that it is backwards to make a policy which will only increase the number of administrators whose real lives are screwed, by being forced to edit with their real names. I could support requiring that all administrators have to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation privately, but requiring them to use their real names publicly in the Google era and with a community as devoid of standards as ours is just reckless. We've ruined enough lives and real-life opportunities for administrators in the past, let's not make the problem any worse. Daniel (talk) 05:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - As I understand it, this proposal is for admins to be identified to the WMF, rather than to the public.
        My take on it is that, if publicly identified, admins will be savaged off-wiki even not on-wiki. We cant control what Google sees, so admins who have disclosed their real name should be comfortable with having their good name savaged, by pseudonymous persons or otherwise. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        My initial response, and subsequent response from that, was to Skomorokh's statement, "I think it would be of great benefit to the project, in terms of reinforcing a professional attitude and deflating the MMORPGish one, if administrators were required to edit under their real names". The fact that I was replying to this comment in particular rather than the Wikipedia:Administrator accountability proposal generally, despite the rather obvious indentation and placement of my comment, seems to have sparked the confused responses which followed my 04:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC) statement, which in itself was a response to Skomorokh's 03:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC) statement. Daniel (talk) 07:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Gotcha. Sorry for the seeing where you were coming from previously. One MMORPGish aspect is the ability to re-spawn, and identifying to the WMF will prevent that in most cases. I dont think the project is ready for all admins to be publicly identified; those that do should be wary of the consequences. I know a lot of lot-time admins who are publicly identifiable; I wonder ... how many are? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Some people's real life names are sufficiently common that you'd need to know their street to know which John Smith they are. Other people have names so rare that you can google them and get their work phone number. Some people spend their time on here quietly writing great content about bridges, butterflies or bishops; others spend their time deleting attack pages, preventing spammers from hijacking business articles and turning them into advertorial, or adjudicating on POV wars re controversial wars and organisations. So requiring admins to edit in their own name has different implications for different people. If I had to edit in my own name I'd still be on this site, but as an FAC reviewer, wikignome and an admin who regularly clears out Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user. But I might steer clear of Category:Attack pages for speedy deletion. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What if I say no?

If this was to pass and be made into policy, what would happen to me if I was to refuse to identify myself?, as no doubt some people would. Would I be desysopped?--Jac16888 ^Talk 07:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exodus

Expect a mass exodus of current admins if this becomes reality. What's next, are we going to have the same rules OTRS has? Must be 18, blah blah blah? People wonder why newbies want to become admins just for the status, but it probably wouldn't be so common if adminship wasn't made such a big deal. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 08:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the future

This proposal has been marked as {{rejected}}, though some of the questions raised here are very good ones that I don't believe have been addressed elsewhere, and likely should be. Please feel free to expand this list or provide answers (with a reliable source ;-).

Currently a number of different groups are required to send in photo identification.

How is this information stored?
Who has access to this information?
Under what circumstances (if any) would this information be released to authorities?
How long is this information stored for?

The forge-ability of the current identification practices has been brought up a number of times.

Do the current identification practices provide any substantive benefit if the process is so easily manipulated?
Are there feasible ways to make identification more fool-proof?
What are the consequences (if any) if a person is found to have purposefully misidentified?
Are there any sanity checks in place for those who currently identify with seemingly dubious information?

And, of course, a question of liability comes into play, both on those giving up their information and those collecting it.

Does collecting the information reduce liability on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation?
Does giving up the information to the Wikimedia Foundation increase the likelihood of individual administrators being sued, harassed, or otherwise harmed?

The broader impact of such a proposal still hasn't been fully measured.

If identification were required for all administrators, how many would refuse?

Just some things to contemplate and consider, especially as this information is routinely collected day after day. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"What are the consequences (if any) if a person is found to have purposefully misidentified?"

Humiliation
Presumably the immediate yanking of fraudulently obtained credentials pending an investigation
Possibly a project-wide OFFICE block and/or OFFICE-recommended sysop+other-advanced-rights stripping pending an investigation.
Likely civil liability, but see a lawyer on this one
Possible criminal liability under fraud, misrepresentation, or unauthorized-computer-access statutes, but see a lawyer on this one as well

Remember, an allegation of fraud is not the same as fraud or even compelling evidence of fraud. While AGF does not apply here, Realworld:FairHearing does.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The necessity for those who deal with confidential information to be known to the WMF would seem to be obvious, as required by our confidentiality policy; there is no way we could justify giving such information to those whom they do not know. What we would do with forged credentials is up to the foundation, but I think the in-project part of what davidwr says is very likely. The one related case everyone knows, Essjay, was not forged credential but absence of credentials, and that is essentially what was done. But have there been any such instances? They would not be secret, for the removal of the credentials would be public and attract attention, & some sort of explanation would be necessary. DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC) .[reply]

You could theoretically hide a "forged identity" loss-of-privileges under some other banner to attract less attention. Two obvious but also obviously contrived examples: The editor turns out to be someone who is having legal trouble and he "retires" from the project, while unknown to everyone but a few he is reporting to prison. Another example: An editor resigns from the arbitration committee "due to work issues that will make me unable to edit very much, much less serve" followed by an expected total absence of editing. In both cases, the editor would know his punishment, but the rest of us would not. In the current ARBCOM climate of relative openness, I would not expect such "clandestine" privilage-yanking unless there was a very good reason to do so, such as to protect a person from a real off-wiki threat of harm. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]