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>

Reply via email to