On 6/16/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
My apologies, Sarah; I'll drop that topic completely. However, are you willing to follow your point that you've been making to it's logical conclusion? NO admin is to use proxies. You didn't reply to my second question. I'll repost it for you and everyone in condensed form.
I personally would not want to see any admins editing from open proxies. Admins can currently use the IP-block exemption thing to get round the blocks of open proxies, and I also think that should be removed.
If proxy usage by admins is wrong--and I agree, I really do--why not check every single admin or higher account for them?
I wouldn't be opposed to that.
If one is using proxies, immediate revocation of extra-special access, admin or higher. Admin. B'cat. Checkuser. Steward. If not, why not?
Will you and Jay agree to immediate CheckUsering, and if you are using proxies or extra accounts that are outside of acceptable sock usage, you lose all bits immediately?
As I said, I wouldn't be opposed to all admins being checked, or being checked at random, but there's currently no consensus for it.
I see the "it's no big deal" school of thought as underestimating the amount of damage admins can do -- e.g. undeleting material that needs to stay deleted, copying and posting it elsewhere (as with Wikitruth), unblocking abusive users, starting rows on AN/I, and so on. So I'm all for more admin accountability. I also think we should stop promoting people who've done nothing but make minor edits, because it's way too easy to build up an admin account that way. But this is currently a minority position.