On 5/28/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
If you can't tell the identity of the person who
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?