G'day Steve, 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, -- [[User:MarkGallagher]]