On 5/29/07, Gallagher Mark George <m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
SlimVirgin
wrote:
...we're a top--ten website with no idea how
many admins we have.
We know how many accounts, but not how many people, and we don't
know whether they include banned users.
I'm not an admin so I hope I'm not sounding glib or naive about
it, but: I'm at peace with this dilemma. It's true we can't
know, it's true that's a concern, but it's not one we can afford
to worry about unduly, because there's nothing we can possibly do
about it and still remain as open as we have to be. As long as
it's significantly easier to deadmin someone who's clearly "gone
rogue" than it is for them to construct the facade that allows
them to become an admin in the first place, I think the situation
is tenable.
I hadn't actually considered the scenario that SV puts in her post,
but it strikes me that there are more ways for a Trojan admin to
cause damage than simply going rogue and deleting the main page.
I'd also have to agree with her that, what with the CVU admin
phenomenon, it is trivial for a bad user to rack up a lot of edits and
bung his hand in, "Yep, I'll have me some extra buttons, please." ...
The Trojan admin doesn't have to be a sleeper agent with Big Plans
to cause trouble. He just has to be what he is: a really, *really* bad
admin.
There's also the issue of sockpuppet admin accounts being used in
support of that person's other accounts by blocking opponents,
protecting on the right version, and so on. The problem for us is that
we have no idea of the scale of it. Does it happen at all? Rarely? A
lot? We have no information. What I've noticed is that vandalism
fighting is becoming an increasing issue at RfAs, and it has seemed to
me (based only on my sporadic visits to RfA) that more and more people
are being promoted on the basis of lots of minor edits, which is not a
good thing for a number of reasons, the sock admin issue being one of
them.