Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Please clarify the honorary administrator status

Tim- I think the best way to go about this is to simply have two types of bureaucrats, local bureaucrats who can add and remove all user privileges and have access to other high level maintenance functions, and interwiki (super-)bureaucrats who can do this on any wiki. I think this additional "steward" level is needlessly confusing. We are entering very dangerous territory here. Your original proposal was to decentralize power, and that is all well and good. But this idea, to configure power structures on a local level, has a lot of room for long- term abuse. Let's say I am a highly influential and generally good-natured user who is very active on, say, the Nepali Wikipedia. I'm also known and trusted on the English Wikipedia, so I am quickly given the "keys" to this new power structure configuration module for ne.wikipedia.org. Now let's say I happen to believe that it's a good idea to let sysops ban any user for repeated POV edits, given prior warnings. I'm sure there are many otherwise quite reasonable people who would believe that this is a good idea. Because of my influence and my level of control, it would be very easy for me to implement this power structure on the Nepali Wikipedia. As the Nepali Wikipedia grows, this principle becomes quite established. "POV users" are routinely banned arbitrarily. Because of my influence, I have managed to become the "last instance" of appeals -- there is no voting before banning, but I, the "steward", have obtained a position that effectively allows me to veto or approve any ban. Because I, and nobody else, can desysop users, I can easily enforce this principle. At some point in 2008, some very eloquent English-speaking user of the Nepali Wikipedia complains about this unfair power structure, appeals to Jimbo, the mailing lists etc. However, he is quickly shouted down by people who fear for the autonomy of "their" Wikimedia wikis. They will defend almost any rule on the Nepali Wikipedia as being "the business of the Nepalese" and argue that Jimbo et al. should stay out of it, because they are afraid that if they do not do so, their own idiosyncratic policies will come under scrutiny. "Individual projects should have this level of autonomy!" they will say. And: "These rules have been in place for years, there's no reason to change them now." There is a high level of tension between the English and the non-English spheres, so Jimbo et al. will stay out of it to keep the peace. This will set a precedent and other complainants will be similarly shouted down. Now everyone in this scenario acted with good intentions. However, one single user has effectively managed to obtain control over what is and isn't NPOV in a certain language Wikipedia. There might be more stewards later on, but that merely means a change from a monarchy into an oligarchy. Their decisions may be wrong or right, that doesn't matter, as I think we agree this is not a scenario we want to happen. I don't like the idea of implementing power structuers on the local level. I see no need for it and a lot of ways for things to go wrong. Yes, there's a difference between a 20-person wiki and a 20000-person wiki. But these differences can be accounted for by developing a multi-stage power structure that can be generalized for all wikis, e.g.: < 10 users : no sysops or bureaucrats; use Meta to ask super -bureaucrats to set permissions accordingly < 100 users : at least one bureaucrat, local "Requests for adminship" page, sysops can ban users if there is general consensus to do so, bureaucrat can remove sysop status if there is consensus < 1000 users : "Requests for bureaucrat status" page, appeals process, arbitration committee 1000+ users : quickpoll-style system for dealing with emergency situations I find it highly improbable that the cultural differences are so great that we can not deal with the problems - vandalism, sysop status abuse etc. - on a general, language-independent level. If you approach this problem from a purely rational perspective I believe you will have to admit that this is quite clearly so. In fact, I believe that many non-English wikipedians will embrace your proposal not for rational reasons, but purely because they want to grab every little bit of autonomy for "their" wiki that they can get. On each reasonably large wiki there are at least a couple of users who are subconsciously motivated by a real drive for power. They will rationalize this by saying that "We don't want to be controlled by the English Wikipedia", "We have different problems that need different solutions", but in reality they are already planning on what to do with these new privileges, and not all outcomes will be desirable. I have already observed that on some wikis, individual users have worked hard to establish a status of authority for themselves, and a tool like the one you are describing is exactly what they need to solidify that status. It is also an excellent tool for astroturfers, who can dedicate a lot of time to becoming influential and powerful "stewards" on up-and-coming Wikimedia projects. Keep in mind that Wikimedia is just a couple of years old, but it will be here for a long time to come. Unless we screw up in *major* ways, and someone creates a successful fork, the *minor* mistakes we make today will have *huge* consequences many years in the future that are very hard to foresee now, and very hard to repair later. The different languages effectively act as barriers, and it is very difficult to spot dangerous developments through these barriers. I am strongly opposed to effectively granting absolute autonomy to a small set of individuals in defining power structures that will likely be in place for years, if not decades. Regards, Erik _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l