On 5/28/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
If you can't tell the identity of the person who performed an administrator action, then there's no way to detect administrators who abuse their powers to gain advantage during a content dispute.
In the pseudonym system, you could have a sort of low-powered checkuser, which checks whether the admin has ever edited the account with their nonadmin account.
If you have the "borg" solution then it becomes very difficult even for the system to track who actually performed which sysadmin action.
Well, it would need some modifications to the mediawiki software.
If instead you have a shadow admin account for each admin user, we're back where we started, but with the disadvantage that we can't see anything about an admin except his admin actions. I cannot see what
Are non-admin actions necessarily relevant? Is the fact that an admin spends all his time editing Pokemon articles relevant when he blocks someone for racist propaganda? These aren't rhetorical questions.
possible good such concealment could do. Administrators need to be accountable. We need to see who is up to what.
Accountable to the extent that they could get rung up at work? How accountable?
Steve