Okay, that's enough, Trilliium. You've now made a personal attack against an identifiable individual based on gossip and rumour.
Stop. Risker On 29 June 2014 10:18, Trillium Corsage <trillium2...@yandex.com> wrote: > Pine, > > An analogous argument to the one you're making is: someone who intends to > rob your home will be able to get in one way or other, so why bother > locking the doors when you go out. This is not a good argument. > > You're calling into question the reliability of every identification > document copy ever presented to the WMF by an advanced-rights-seeking > administrator because a really sophisticated wrongdoer (I dunno, Chinese > military intelligence, with whom arbitrator Timotheus Canens is said by > some to be associated?) could make a masterful forgery that beats the > system. The fact is that 95% of them, I'd suppose, are going to be okay and > the identification requirement is going to be an effective deterrent to at > least the casual among the bad apples. And of course, once they've truly > identified, the personal accountability aspects of it are going to keep in > line once well-intentioned administrators that might be tempted to go bad > for some reason. > > "Forging identification documents is not impossible" is another variation > of the "perfection is not attainable" and "no policy can be a magical > solution" arguments put forth previously on this mailing list by the WMF's > deputy general counsel Luis Villa. I've attempted to answer those by > explaining that you can have a pretty good and effective policy without > having an infallible one. > > Trillium Corsage > > 29.06.2014, 07:32, "Pine W" <wiki.p...@gmail.com>: > > Trillium, > > > > I am having difficulty understanding how retaining copies of possibly > > forged identification documents helps anyone with holding accountable any > > rogue functionary or OTRS user. Can you explain that please? Surely > someone > > who intends to misuse the tools will be smart enough to forge an > > identification document. Even in the United States, forging > identification > > documents is not impossible, and the police occasionally catch people > > creating such documents. > > > > Pine > > > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Trillium Corsage < > trillium2...@yandex.com> > > wrote: > >> @Nathan > >> > >> You said "so if you want to argue that such users should be positively > >> identified, then please make some practical suggestions (which you have > >> conspicuously avoided doing so far). How should identities be > confirmed? In > >> what circumstances should the ID information be disclosed, and to whom? > >> What, fundamentally, is the usefulness in collecting this information > to > >> begin with? What are the use cases in which it is necessary?" > >> > >> It would be a good faith evaluation of the copy of the identification > >> document provided. There's no need to be quarrelsome about the > practical > >> suggestions I've "conspicuously avoided." I did at least suggest a > secure > >> filing cabinet and making use of a removable hard-drive. As to the > precise > >> criteria by which an identification document is deemed "good enough," > I'd > >> suppose those would be developed on a good faith basis by the action > >> officer. Nobody is depending on perfection by that individual. The > >> principle would be that the document appears genuine, has the minimum > >> elements settled on by the policy (name, age, address, possibly other > >> elements). If the document is in a foreign language, say Swahili, and > the > >> WMF person can't read that, I would think it would be a "do the best > you > >> can" and file it by respective Wikipedia and username. None of these > are > >> insurmountable obstacles. The answer to "this is hard" is not "well, > let's > >> just stop doing it." The answer is "this is important, let's just do > the > >> best we can." > >> > >> I have called for a basic examination of the document, not any > >> verification process. I'd suppose if the document looked suspect in > some > >> way, then a telephone call or follow-up could be done, and that would > be a > >> "verification," but I would expect that to be the exception, not the > rule. > >> Again, these details would be settled by the hands-on person, not by me > >> attempting to write a ten-page standard operating procedure while > Nathan > >> zings me with "what are your specifics" on the mailing list. > >> > >> "What is the usefulness in collecting this information to begin with?" > >> Well, I thought the premise here was obvious. It was obvious enough to > >> those that crafted the previous policy in the first place. It > establishes > >> some level of accountability to those individuals accorded access to > the > >> personally-identifying information of editors. Personal accountability > >> encourages acting with self-control and restraint. With apologies to > the > >> other person that responded, anonymity encourages a care-free and > >> unrestricted handling of that data, and in fact to some of these > people it > >> indeed yields a MMORPG (multimedia online roleplaying game) > environment, > >> and they will do whatever they want, because they are free from > >> accountability. > >> > >> The other key aspect of usefulness is to the rank and file editors. > They > >> will feel better knowing that if some creepazoid or cyberbully starts > going > >> over their IPs, and of course Googling and otherwise sleuthing for > more on > >> them, that at least the WMF knows who they are, and the rank and file > >> editor potentially has some recourse if it finally comes to it. So I > say > >> the usefulness there is treating editors right and furnishing a safer > >> environment for them, in which they are not so exposed to anonymous > >> administrators. > >> > >> Thank you for your response. > >> > >> Trillium Corsage (by the way although "Trillium" is a type of flower, > I am > >> in fact a dude. So please use male pronouns if it occurs to you. It was > >> just an email address I picked sort of randomly and then I ran with it > as > >> pseudonym). > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
