G'day Steve,
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." He doesn't even have to be a *competent* cleaner-up of vandalism; reverting good edits by anons, leaving inappropriate warnings, and tagging good articles for speedy deletion all show up as Good Work in a "vandal-fighter"'s log. So, not only is it easy for an unworthy person to get adminship by doing semi-automated tasks that look and feel (but aren't) like hard work, his actions don't even have to be of net benefit to the project for people to support him.
A Trojan admin will have all of the disadvantages that made him a banned user in the first place: he'll be quarrelsome, rude, clueless, arrogant, and insensitive. It's not hard to see how a rogue admin who doesn't "go rogue" but simply hangs around like that last inaccessible little bit of peanut butter in the jar, driving away newbies and befouling the morale of the community, spreading cluelessness about him like the Johnny Appleseed of the Broken Telephone Effect, could cause a great deal of damage to the project ... and we wouldn't even know. Going out with a magnesium flare, chanting "I am rogue, I am rogue" brings a lot of attention to one's self; just being a moron is unlikely to raise nearly so much fuss.
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. So, I agree with SV that this could be a big problem. On the other hand, it's no worse a problem than what we see today with ordinary, non-Trojan, really, really bad admins.
So, I sort of agree with you, too.
Cheers,
On 5/29/07, Gallagher Mark George m.g.gallagher@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.
MarkGallagher wrote:
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.
Oh, sure. But one of our alleged strengths, which can work precisely as well against admin malfeasance as against simple vandalism, is the vaunted thousands-of-eyes effect. If an admin does something squirrely, something far less blatant than blanking the main page, *someone* is going to notice, and likely complain. (Whether the complaint is taken seriously is of course another question.)
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."
SOFIXIT. I mean, seriously. If we've got a dysfunctional admin approval process, we've got all sorts of problems. (Obviously. But no, I don't know how to fix it, either.)
A Trojan admin will have all of the disadvantages that made him a banned user in the first place: he'll be quarrelsome, rude, clueless, arrogant, and insensitive.
Well, no. We shouldn't be tolerating (or indeed promoting) quarrelsome, rude, clueless, arrogant or insensitive people as admins. So they'll have to work harder than that if they want to sneak in. (If RfA has become so myopic that it's routinely approving admins who score highly on its little pet metrics despite being quarrelsome, rude, clueless, arrogant and insensitive, it's worse than I thought.)
On the other hand, it's no worse a problem than what we see today with ordinary, non-Trojan, really, really bad admins.
And not that much worse than ordinary, non-Administrator, really, really bad editors, either.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
- -----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Steve Summit Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:09 PM To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES vs RFA
Given what you've all written, isn't this as much of a bureaucrat problem as anything? Are they not the 'last line of defense?'
JodyB
MarkGallagher wrote:
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.
Oh, sure. But one of our alleged strengths, which can work precisely as well against admin malfeasance as against simple vandalism, is the vaunted thousands-of-eyes effect. If an admin does something squirrely, something far less blatant than blanking the main page, *someone* is going to notice, and likely complain. (Whether the complaint is taken seriously is of course another question.)
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."
SOFIXIT. I mean, seriously. If we've got a dysfunctional admin approval process, we've got all sorts of problems. (Obviously. But no, I don't know how to fix it, either.)
A Trojan admin will have all of the disadvantages that made him a banned user in the first place: he'll be quarrelsome, rude, clueless, arrogant, and insensitive.
Well, no. We shouldn't be tolerating (or indeed promoting) quarrelsome, rude, clueless, arrogant or insensitive people as admins. So they'll have to work harder than that if they want to sneak in. (If RfA has become so myopic that it's routinely approving admins who score highly on its little pet metrics despite being quarrelsome, rude, clueless, arrogant and insensitive, it's worse than I thought.)
On the other hand, it's no worse a problem than what we see today with ordinary, non-Trojan, really, really bad admins.
And not that much worse than ordinary, non-Administrator, really, really bad editors, either.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
J. Bryant Evans wrote:
A Trojan admin will have all of the disadvantages that made him a banned user in the first place: he'll be quarrelsome, rude, clueless, arrogant, and insensitive.
Well, no. We shouldn't be tolerating (or indeed promoting) quarrelsome, rude, clueless, arrogant or insensitive people as admins. So they'll have to work harder than that if they want to sneak in. (If RfA has become so myopic that it's routinely approving admins who score highly on its little pet metrics despite being quarrelsome, rude, clueless, arrogant and insensitive, it's worse than I thought.)
It just happens that the decision making process for deciding how to fix the RfA process is just as dusfunctional.
Ec