Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Cecropia

Cecropia
I hadn't any intention of putting myself up for bureaucrat, since a bureaucrat doesn't do very much and I thought that the current people in that position were just fine. But I've noticed that some obviously successful nominations have gone days without being sysoped, and I had no idea why. Now I see&mdash;the work has been falling on just a few people. I do the dog work on Wikipedia (VfD, vandals) when I can, and would be happy to help here, too.
 * User "Dick Cheney" asked me a question on my user page, which I thought was a good one, about using the Bureaucrat power of promotion. With his permission, I'm repeating it below under "Discussion" with my response. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:52, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Always a polite and responsible sysop. JCarriker 06:54, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) A good choice to help out. Warofdreams 11:47, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Calm, fair, and a good worker. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:59, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Perfect temperament, excellent dedication. Jwrosenzweig 18:11, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) &#8212;No-One Jones 19:57, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) older &ne; wiser 21:57, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) David Gerard 22:06, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) James F. (talk) 01:38, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) 172 14:50, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) --"D ICK " C HENEY  16:23, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) john k 17:52, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Merovingian &#8597; T@Lk 17:58, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Neutrality 21:21, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Wile E. Heresiarch 09:52, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) Lst27 03:43, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) VV 18:27, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) Hey, isn't this the guy who only got 78% of the votes for sysop? ;-) Heck, YEAH, I support! --Uncle Ed 22:11, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) Definitely. BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 22:34, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) pir 08:12, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 20) T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  14:45, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 21) Woggly 20:02, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 22) Davodd 04:17, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * 23) Decumanus 17:18, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 24) Michael Snow 00:11, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 25) I have confidence with Cecropia in this regard. Kingturtle 01:53, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Zw 09:03, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Kevin Baas 18:34, 2004 Jun 18 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion [from Cecropia's talk page]: Hello. I noticed your request for bureaucratship and I had a couple of quick questions I've been asking all of the recent candidates. Do you support adminship being widespread and generally "no big deal" or do you feel adminship should be more exclusive? As a bureaucrat would you give controversial user's and troll's votes equal weight to the votes of respected contributors? Best regards --"DICK" CHENEY 15:05, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to answer these questions, if only because it might help others solidify their own ideas in these areas, whether they agree with me or not, or want me for Bureaucrat or not. I agree with the general policy that adminship should be granted to a diligent contributor who appears to enjoy the general confidence of the community&mdash;that is, there is no reason to believe that person would use the "power" for mischief, and thereby promote arguments about "de-sysoping," which pretty much never happens. I don't think that the overall number of admins should be some "exclusive club," but I would like to see admin candidates express a positive interest in doing housekeeping: vandalism," VfD, and appropriately helping newcomers (or warning potential miscreants) understand the Culture and Rules of Wikipedia&mdash;in short, increase the numbers of "active," as opposing to "nominal" admins.


 * As a bureaucrat I would go a single step beyond the concept that a BC should ideally be a button pusher who simply carries out the will of the community, because their are certain instances where some kind of judgment must be made. So, I would not sysop someone who had less than 75% of the votes, hoping they could address the arguments against them and return later. If the user had 80% or more, I would almost always (will explain anon) make them sysops.


 * Only in the dicey area between 75% and 80%, if I saw that the nomination was "hanging" (at least 24 hours) for lack of a decision I would look at: the overall number of votes (3 out of 4 is much different than 30 out of 40); and read the support and objections; my life experience opinion is that a manager (bureaucrat) has to be able to make a decision and be able to defend it. I wouldn't reject "controversial" user's votes, because (a) they are still votes and (b) controversial is arguable. I would have to see what was meant by a "vandal." "troll." A true troll (and most vandals) are short-term users whose vote wouldn't count due to already-existing rules, and of course I wouldn't count them either. As I just said, in the 75-80% area, I would have to read the specific comments, and if necessary, research these comments. Of course, closeness to 80% obviously also counts. However, as a final important point (again in the 75-80% area), if I felt that I could not be neutral because the nominee was viewed as a friend or opponent of mine, I would leave the decision to another BC, and would likely confer my opinion, if any, to them. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:52, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * In reality, not all users are equal and not all trolls are short-term users. Pardon my candor and use of a real example, but Wik was, at the very least, a controversial user. Should the pre-ban Wik's vote of Oppose be able to cancel out 4 respected users that vote Support? Various EntmootsOfTrolls reincarnations have been voting here after making contributions elsewhere, and like Wik, they usually oppose the most well qualified candidates. I firmly believe that the votes of controversial users and trolls should be given approximately half the weight (or less) of regular users. Maybe the arbitration committee should disenfranchise troublesome users? --"D ICK " C HENEY 15:38, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with your sentiment. I have complained about exactly that point (one POV user cancels four votes). However, I would feel bound to honor policy which appears to give Bureaucrats minimal discretion in "pushing the button." IOW, I don't see where a Bureaucrat is empowered to use broad discretion in determining consensus. I've outlined my approach above--long debates appear to show that the "gray" area is between 75% and 80%. I would certainly take the time to examine the issues, personalities and arguments put forth to come to a fair conclusion in those circumstances, because I don't feel it is right to leave a candidate "hanging" after eight full days have passed. I would be happy to join you and anyone else in a debate aimed at setting guidelines that would focus criteria for Bureaucrats to make informed decisions in determining consensus beyond simple numbers. -- Cecropia | Talk 16:16, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)