Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Kelly Martin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My oppose vote isn't about current personalities in the here and now. It's about laying down a solid foundation for a project that very well may continue years after everyone here is dead. And in my view, that solid foundation includes separation-of-powers principles. If we are truly successful, Wikipedia's importance will grow beyond that of almost any other organization, project, or national government, and once we're that important, these sort of principles will be crucial. A cabal on Wikipedia today means slight problems. A cabal on Wikipedia 20-50 years from now may very well mean that a chosen few get to decide for all of humanity what the sum of freely-redistributed human knowledge will consist of. That's a staggering amount of power, and my oppose vote is meant to prevent that amount of power ever falling into the hands of a cabal. It has nothing to do with Kelly Martin, Raul654, or any other Wikipedian. — Phil Welch 05:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

A couple objections have been raised that I would like to address here. No, I don't intend for my principle to prevent bureaucrats from running for Arbcom--I would just expect that any bureaucrat elected to Arbcom would, for the duration of her term, revert to simple admin status as a matter of standard procedure. My view is simple: there are "small numbers" of arbitrators, bureaucrats, stewards, Board members, etc. If we let the same people hold all these positions, what we have is a cabal. As for simple admins, there are way, way too many admins to make a cabal—hundreds, if I'm not mistaken. In contrast, the number of arbitrators is under 10, and will not expand beyond 100 in even the most radical proposals I've seen. The number of bureaucrats and higher access privilege holders is in the dozens. The number of board members is five—only two of whom are active Wikipedians. Now, having held a position of trust such as bureaucrat or arbitrator certainly says a lot about a contributor, and I think that largely because of her position as an Arbitrator, Kelly is experienced and qualified enough as a Wikipedian to be a bureaucrat—just not at the same time. Now, a simple answer is that "if things get that bad on Wikipedia, there will be a fork." While that's true, forking Wikipedia would even at this point be a huge undertaking. 5-10 years from now it would be such an immense undertaking that we should do what we can to make forking less likely to become necessary. — Phil Welch 05:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, the reward for a job well done is another three jobs. The reason for this is that people tend to like assurance that people of proven commitment and competence are doing the jobs. So you'll get all admins on the arbcom even though that's not a requirement, bureaucrats on arbcom, arbitrators running as bureaucrat, etc. And that's fine because this is a project to write an encyclopedia, not an Internet government - David Gerard 15:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Think about this: when Kelly was elected to become an arbitrator, Wikipedia essentially gave total trust in her to do the right™. Why should this situation be any different? By saying that we don't trust her enough to have both powers, then following that reason, how do we trust her to become the highest position in the judicial branch of Wikipedia? That is why Phil Welch's logic is wrong. TDS (talk • contribs) 15:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
She wasn't elected but rather temporarily appointed by Jimbo. That's the trust of a single man, but not of the whole Wikipedia.  Grue  16:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Reductio ad absurdum: since the American people trusted Bill Clinton to be President, why should they not trust him to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and Speaker of the House at the same time? If they trusted him with one position, why not the others? If we don't trust him enough to make him an effective dictator, how do we trust him to be the most powerful man in the American government? — Phil Welch 17:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Temporarily appointed by Jimbo is still a large show of trust on the founder of Wikipedia's part, and the fact that he appointed her without a vote shows a very, very large basis of trust in her. And the difference between Bill Clinton and Kelly, is that it is much easier to corrupt the president of the United States. I could not see Kelly becoming a corrupt arbitrator attempting to take over, while US Presidents have shown corruption in the past (or for that matter any president/prime minister/head of state). I completely trust Kelly here and do not think she would use her powers for evil as suggested by Phil. When the time comes to block a tyrant, we will; this is not the time. TDS (talk • contribs) 18:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I trust Kelly too. This isn't about Kelly. This is about creating an impartial set of principles that we can sustain for the future. TDS, by the time we know we have to block a bad guy from getting too much power, it'll be too late. Which is easier: making it impossible for a bad guy to get this kind of power in the first place, or waiting until we can overcome AGF and prove that one particular contributor is a bad guy? Because by the time we can prove it, it's too late. It'll be time to fork, and I, for one, don't want it to come to that. — Phil Welch 19:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that the community does not scale, and at some level an Internet government is required to write an encyclopedia. Why else do we have admins/b-cats/stewards? There's no reason to make a system that's subject to positive feedback on purpose. - brenneman(t)(c) 16:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I realize you are trying to create a precedent for this kind of election, and not giving too much power to one person, but I don't think this is a precedent that needs to be set. By any one person becoming an arbitrator at the behest of Jimmy Wales, and then receiving support in an election for annother position shows that there is trust in that person, and that there is no reason to fear said person. I don't think your 'bad guy' will come along, and that he will receive the support that he needs. This is a precedent showing that the community can trust a person to have many seperate jobs at high branches in the community. I stand by my reasoning: when the metaphorical 'bad guy' comes along, the community will recognize it, and he will not be given any of these powers. TDS (talk • contribs) 20:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
That attitude strikes me as recklessly naive. It is an attitude that will lead to the death of Wikipedia in the long run. The threat of Wikipedia being taken over and perverted to some political, commercial, or ideological end by a cabal is significant, and if we are successful, attempts at this will be inevitable. Yes, I think we should find ways for the community to identify these people and expose them, but it's reckless for that to be our sole line of defense. We need multiple layers—identification of hostile agents, decentralization of power, greater community involvement in day-to-day decisions, fork preparation and forking—instead of relying on just one. Wikipedia is potentially one of the single most important undertakings in human history and we need to start treating it with that sense of importance. — Phil Welch 20:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
What you are saying is that we should never trust one person to take on multiple positions of power, even if said person has been given almost absolute power anyways. Following your logic and decentralization of power, there should be no ArbCom, as they have almost absolute power. My attitude will not lead to the death of Wikipedia, it will lead to the continued existence. If we promote community strength, and give people jobs that will help the community, and assign powers correctly, without prejudice, we will have a strong Wikipedia. If we have a suspicious outlook on all Wikipedians and consider them all hostiles in the waiting, then Wikipedia will fail. While I do appreciate the fact that you are trying to prove a point, this may be better discussed a policy, and going by the rules WP:POINT, you are disrupting the purpose here: to elect a bureaucrat to assist the community based on his/her actions, and outlook on him/her - not to discuss whether or not Arbitrators should not be given any more power. Thanks, TDS (talk • contribs) 20:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Just steping here on a minor nitpick: You're misrepresenting WP:POINT, the idea behind WP:POINT is that a violator does something which he thinks is bad in order to use that counter example to prove their point. There is nothing wrong with doing what you think is right to 'prove a point'. I don't agree with Philwelch on this matter, but I see nothing wrong with him voting in line with his position. --Gmaxwell 01:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I do think Arbcom should be replaced with a more community-based process, but insofar as we have an Arbcom, the power of Arbcom members should be limited to arbitration. I also think that your accusations that I am disrupting Wikipedia to make a point are absurd—for someone who proposes a nigh-suicidal degree of AGF in promoting users to positions of trust, you apparently have little AGF in your day-to-day dealings. I do not think Kelly should become a bureaucrat at this time because she is an arbitrator. It's no more WP:POINT to oppose her on these grounds than it is WP:POINT to oppose her on any other grounds. Is Alkivar disrupting Wikipedia to make the point that we don't need any more bureaucrats? Is Aaron Brenneman disrupting Wikipedia to make the point that users "prone to surface reading of events" should not be bureaucrats? Similarly, I'm not disrupting Wikipedia to make the point that we should have separation of powers—I am opposing Kelly's request because we should have separation of powers. — Phil Welch 22:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The difference is that they are opposing based on supposed actions of Kelly, or that there are no more bureaucrats needed. You are opposing merely to make a point that we need to decentralize power, or we will find ourself on a very slippery slope, and Wikipedia will crumble. Why should a member of ArbCom be limited to just arbitration? They have already shown themselves as very useful, and trustworthy members of the community, and there is always more help needed. TDS (talk • contribs) 00:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I am not opposing to make a point about decentralizing power. I am opposing to do what is in my power to start carrying out the decentralization here and now. I'm not interested in rehashing this argument with you and I'm not interested in hearing your personal attacks, so if you would kindly drop the matter that would be appreciated. — Phil Welch 00:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I just don't think any single Wikipedian should be so powerful. I realize that a couple Wikipedians (Tim Starling, Angela, Jimbo) are already far more powerful than necessary to create a cabal, but that was unavoidable considering how Wikipedia developed, and furthermore, seems to be something to move away from rather than toward. I really hate to oppose Kelly because she does seem like the model Wikipedian, and the minute her arbcom term expires I will renominate her. Alternatively, if bureaucrat-level access itself were decentralized so that, say, 1/3 of all active admins had it, I would have no problems supporting Kelly. But given the status quo, I think my reasons have been expressed adequately here. — Phil Welch 01:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

We as encyclopedists are lucky that we aren't taken seriously. When we reach the point where we are the definitive source of verified knowledge in the industrialized world, we will not be so lucky. If Wikipedia ever becomes as authoritative as we hope it will become, then we will be under severe risk. Anybody can join Wikipedia; this is a strength, but it is also the source of our greatest threat. At some point, some external force or faction will see the value in controlling Wikipedia. If I were leading a political movement in this aim, I would place a number of sleeper agents within Wikipedia and allow them to make any number of innocuous and helpful contributions while subtly helping one another to reach positions of trust. Then, when this same group of sleeper agents controlled all positions of trust in Wikipedia, I could execute a hostile takeover without anyone being the wiser.

If this seems far-fetched, it is only because we have the luxury of time before this becomes a serious threat to us. Do any of us seriously believe that once we've established our reputation as an impartial and authoritative reference source, no one will seek to control Wikipedia? The time to construct barriers to this threat is now. The simplest and first barrier is to make it so that no person can hold multiple positions of trust if those positions of trust are relatively limited in number. Adminship I don't see as a problem, because at least 25% of dedicated full-time contributors should be admins anyway. We have 673 admins on en. [1] Within a couple years we'll have thousands of admins. I'm not as worried about a cabal of thousands as I am about a cabal of 10-50 people. — Phil Welch 17:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Given the actual quality of our average article, I think we'd have to move mountains before "we've established our reputation as an impartial and authoritative reference source". In point of fact, I seriously doubt that's ever going to happen. Even if it did, your shadowy conspirators would still need to figure out some way to rid themselves of Jimbo Wales.--Scïmïłar parley 22:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm looking 10-50 years down the road. If you don't think Wikipedia will ever be established as authoritative, fair enough, but my goal is to make it authoritative and I don't think I'm the only one. Besides, Jimbo isn't immortal. — Phil Welch 22:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, it would be nice, but I think as long as Wikipedia treats anyone who wanders by with as much respect and credibility as experts, we won't be authoritative. If the goal is to keep the bureaucrat powers disconnected from arbiration powers, it's too late- we already have arbitrating bureaucrats.--Scïmïłar parley 22:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Sure, and that's fine for now, I'm just trying to move away from it. — Phil Welch 22:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The idea that a government of some kind is likely to exist on Wikipedia is overstated, at the very least. Anybody will be able to edit the encyclopedia, for the foreseeable future, so the control of the articles remains in the hands of the ordinary editors. A tiny number of articles are protected at any given time, and presently the period of protection seldom exceeds one week. Otherwise an article can be extended by any person, logged in or not, acting within the bounds of neutrality and verifiability. The admin power games and arbitration committee aren't going to change that. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this view and want to preserve this state of affairs as far as is possible. In fact, that's the main justification for what I'm doing here. — Phil Welch 22:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saving Space

"Generally" means nothing in this case IMO, and apparently in the opinion of others as seen by the comment of Tabor on the main page of this rfb. You all know that policies and traditions on WP are often very loose and very pragmatic. Requiring self nominations for RfBs doesn't help anything, and would be ignored even if it was "official". Karmafist 14:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] oops!

I didn't notice that this was closed early! Sorry about that. --Ixfd64 03:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)