[WikiEN-l] BADSITES vs RFA

[Steve Summit]

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.