Anon anon, Administrators should forgo their 'right' to anonymity Options

[flash]

I guess this must have already been said, but I couldn't see much sign of the debate if so just now... so...

the best way to 'clip the wings' of the anonymous psychopaths, social rejects and spies is simply to say, if they want to be a 'public figure', taking decisions that affect people, causing nervous types to have breakdowns, twisting the information to fit personal, corporate or 'national' agenda - then they have to forgo their cloak of invisibility.

If they want to be anonymous, they have to stay humble wikiusers like the rest of humanity.



This post has been edited by flash: Tue 17th June 2008, 5:35pm

[guy]

the best way to 'clip the wings' of the anonymous psychopaths, social rejects and spies is simply to say, if they want to be a 'public figure', taking decisions that affect people, causing nervous types to have breakdowns, twisting the information to fit personal, corporate or 'national' agenda - then they have to forgo their cloak of invisibility.

We have often discussed this. It doesn't work, though; plenty of the people we object to most strongly have well-known real-life identities. Some even use their real names as user names.

[michael]

the best way to 'clip the wings' of the anonymous psychopaths, social rejects and spies is simply to say, if they want to be a 'public figure', taking decisions that affect people, causing nervous types to have breakdowns, twisting the information to fit personal, corporate or 'national' agenda - then they have to forgo their cloak of invisibility.

We have often discussed this. It doesn't work, though; plenty of the people we object to most strongly have well-known real-life identities. Some even use their real names as user names.

Mind giving me the rundown? I know there's Cberlet and Dking...who else is controversial?

[Sarcasticidealist]

Mind giving me the rundown? I know there's Cberlet and Dking...who else is controversial?

Other admins who are frequently criticized on this site and also non-anonymous include JzG, David Gerard, Will Beback, Elonka, and Raul654. Then there are former admins Durova and JoshuaZ. Broadening the definition of "non-anonymous" somewhat, you get SlimVirgin. And, of course, there's Jimbo.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

the best way to 'clip the wings' of the anonymous psychopaths, social rejects and spies is simply to say, if they want to be a 'public figure', taking decisions that affect people, causing nervous types to have breakdowns, twisting the information to fit personal, corporate or 'national' agenda - then they have to forgo their cloak of invisibility.

We have often discussed this. It doesn't work, though; plenty of the people we object to most strongly have well-known real-life identities. Some even use their real names as user names.

Mind giving me the rundown? I know there's Cberlet and Dking...who else is controversial?

Cberlet and Dking will never be admins, because they piss off too many people at the project; their POV-pushing is clumsy and belligerent, unlike the smoother operators like SV who cultivate a lot of allies, and cloak their insults in Wikilawyerese.

Guy is referring to admins who may not be "notable," but make no effort to conceal their real-life indenties.

[Giggy]

Mind giving me the rundown? I know there's Cberlet and Dking...who else is controversial?

Other admins who are frequently criticized on this site and also non-anonymous include JzG, David Gerard, Will Beback, Elonka, and Raul654. Then there are former admins Durova and JoshuaZ. Broadening the definition of "non-anonymous" somewhat, you get SlimVirgin. And, of course, there's Jimbo.

You'd fall into that category too.

[Viridae]

Mind giving me the rundown? I know there's Cberlet and Dking...who else is controversial?

Other admins who are frequently criticized on this site and also non-anonymous include JzG, David Gerard, Will Beback, Elonka, and Raul654. Then there are former admins Durova and JoshuaZ. Broadening the definition of "non-anonymous" somewhat, you get SlimVirgin. And, of course, there's Jimbo.

Tony Sidaway

[flash]

Mind giving me the rundown? I know there's Cberlet and Dking...who else is controversial?

Other admins who are frequently criticized on this site and also non-anonymous include JzG, David Gerard, Will Beback, Elonka, and Raul654. Then there are former admins Durova and JoshuaZ. Broadening the definition of "non-anonymous" somewhat, you get SlimVirgin. And, of course, there's Jimbo.

Hmmm... but there's thousands of admins - many of them no doubt the same person. All the decisions are taken by groups of admins some of whom are anonymous even if some are supposedly 'out of the shadows'. And getting rid of anonymity would start to undercut the activities of cliques...?

This post has been edited by flash: Wed 18th June 2008, 10:27am

[Viridae]

Mind giving me the rundown? I know there's Cberlet and Dking...who else is controversial?

Other admins who are frequently criticized on this site and also non-anonymous include JzG, David Gerard, Will Beback, Elonka, and Raul654. Then there are former admins Durova and JoshuaZ. Broadening the definition of "non-anonymous" somewhat, you get SlimVirgin. And, of course, there's Jimbo.

Hmmm... but there's thousands of admins - many of them no doubt the same person.

That I will disagree with. I find it highly unlikey that many of the wikipedia admins are sockpuppets.

[Moulton]

Mind giving me the rundown? I know there's Cberlet and Dking...who else is controversial?

Other admins who are frequently criticized on this site and also non-anonymous include JzG, David Gerard, Will Beback, Elonka, and Raul654. Then there are former admins Durova and JoshuaZ. Broadening the definition of "non-anonymous" somewhat, you get SlimVirgin. And, of course, there's Jimbo.

Tony Sidaway

FeloniousMonk, KillerChihuahua, and now two new names: Blueboy96 and Toddst1.

[dtobias]

Many prominent Wikipedians -- good, bad, and hard-to-classify (where do I fit?) -- use their real names. Still, the paranoid hysteria over "outing" those who choose to conceal their real name is a particularly annoying part of the site culture. It's like some of the members think of themselves as superheroes with secret identities, and they and their friends go to excessive lengths to try to protect those identities. (But, back in the Silver Age of comics, when Superman went to excessive lengths to protect his identity, he had "good friends" like Lois Lane who tried their best to be evil, slimy "outers"! [But "their best" wasn't particularly good, since everybody in the Silver Age of comics was a moron.]) It gets very silly when "anonymous" Wikipedians go around sending e-mails under their real names to involve themselves in Wikipedia-related issues, or even let themselves get interviewed on Internet radio shows under their real name, but it's still a horrible offense to mention that name on Wikipedia.

----------------
Now playing: Bangles - Complicated Girl
via FoxyTunes

This post has been edited by dtobias: Wed 18th June 2008, 12:05pm

[JoseClutch]

Mind giving me the rundown? I know there's Cberlet and Dking...who else is controversial?

Other admins who are frequently criticized on this site and also non-anonymous include JzG, David Gerard, Will Beback, Elonka, and Raul654. Then there are former admins Durova and JoshuaZ. Broadening the definition of "non-anonymous" somewhat, you get SlimVirgin. And, of course, there's Jimbo.

Jeez, turn it around and ask "What admins are contraversial/problematic and anonymous?" and I don't think I could come up with that many names.

[Sarcasticidealist]

You'd fall into that category too.

Am I criticized around here much? Greg tore a few strips off me at the beginning of the nomination period for the WMF Board elections, when everything I was saying was inaccurate, but I don't think I've ever seen any of my admin actions questioned here. I don't read every forum, but I suspect I'd noticed that.

Hmmm... but there's thousands of admins - many of them no doubt the same person.

I agree with Viridae on this - I don't think it's likely. There are probably one or two instances among the 1100 or so active admins, but I doubt there are more.

And getting rid of anonymity would start to undercut the activities of cliques...?

How?

Tony Sidaway

I thought of him after, under former admins. I also thought of Georgewilliamherbert, Fred Bauder, and Jpgordon.

Jeez, turn it around and ask "What admins are contraversial/problematic and anonymous?" and I don't think I could come up with that many names.

Jayjg's easily the most complained-about admin to successfully remain anonymous. FT2 is still anonymous too, right? Or am I just paying insufficient attention?

[GlassBeadGame]

Requiring people to link there actions and statements to IRL identities generally makes them want to avoid shameful, destructive and irresponsible conduct and statements. For those that it fails to deter it provides an avenue for accountability for defamation, copyright vios, misconduct toward children, misrepresentation, academic improprieties etc.

[JoseClutch]

Jeez, turn it around and ask "What admins are contraversial/problematic and anonymous?" and I don't think I could come up with that many names.

Jayjg's easily the most complained-about admin to successfully remain anonymous. FT2 is still anonymous too, right? Or am I just paying insufficient attention?

Dunno about FT2, though I don't think he's nearly as contraversial as the named "known person" admins, or other known identity admins I could name (Bauder, for instance, or Danny). And if I think about it, I can name a few more contraversial anonymous admins - Ryulong,Crum375, FeloniusMonk, Viridae (who doesn't get criticized much here, but must realistically be considered contraversial). Maybe it's more like 50-50, but I don't think that's the rate among uncontraversial admins.

Of course, ArbCom could select the "desysop them all from orbit" option in the Omnibus case. That'd cut a good chunk out. But likely they will not.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Other admins who are frequently criticized on this site and also non-anonymous include JzG, David Gerard, Will Beback, Elonka, and Raul654.

Will Beback is not his real name. Someone "outed" him here at the Review a few years back, and he immediately sent an email demanding that the personal info be deleted. It was.

[One]

We have often discussed this. It doesn't work, though; plenty of the people we object to most strongly have well-known real-life identities. Some even use their real names as user names.

And the flip side is that some of the most influential users are not admins anyway. I speak of super users like Cberlet, MONGO, Durova, and to a lesser extent Orangemarlin, Tony Sidaway, ect.

I suspect many admins maintain sockpuppets and use them illegitimately, but I share Viridae's suspicion that few admin socks exist.

[Viridae]

3 of those are desysopped or retired in controversial circumstances

[One]

3 of those are desysopped or retired in controversial circumstances

Right. My point is that desysopping them won't help. Moreover, one can attain the status of POV-pusher in residence without the bit. If anything, it makes their job easier (less being hauled into ArbCom for "abusing the tools").

[Somey]

And getting rid of anonymity would start to undercut the activities of cliques...?

How?

It would depend on what the so-called cliques are doing and who's in them, wouldn't it? In some cases it might actually bolster their activities. In other words, if you could use the identities of cliquers to prove that there's some agenda-driven promotionalism or COI going on, then yes, you'd probably undercut them. But if you couldn't, i.e., it turned out that all the cliquers are Pure as the Driven Snow™ or even that they're well-respected experts in their fields (or whatever), then you'd only be hosing yourself, at least as far as content disputes are concerned.

Obviously, the more controversial the subject matter, and I do emphasize that controversial is spelled with an "o," the more likely it is that the cliquers are agenda-driven. But you'd also have to be careful about the nature of the agenda - with something like Intelligent Design, for example, you're not likely to get much sympathy once you cross over from criticism of blatantly rotten-apple edit-warring tactics into actually saying things in support of ID itself. So the cliquers are going to do everything they possibly can to convince others that the latter is your own "real" agenda, no matter how false that may be.