Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Warofdreams

Warofdreams
Given that there appears to be a shortage of bureaucrats, as I'm a sysop with this page on my watchlist, and I check it most days, I'd be happy to help out.

Support
 * 1) Cecropia | Talk 14:23, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) "Many [responsible] hands make light work."
 * 2) David Gerard 14:36, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) theresa knott 14:44, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) I don't know WoD well, but anyone with David G and Theresa K's trust has mine. :-) Jwrosenzweig 18:11, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) James F. (talk) 01:37, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Merovingian &#8597; T@Lk 17:57, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutrality 21:14, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Danny 01:46, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Lst27 03:43, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) The Undertones 22:04, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Secretlondon 01:24, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) pir 08:06, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Woggly 22:17, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Acegikmo1 23:41, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC).  My vote is based on this user's response to the questions below.
 * 15) Morwen - Talk 18:46, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Very respectfully oppose. Warofdreams is an excellent contributor, but I very strongly disagree with the statement What I would object to is simply deciding to ignore votes against because a voter is controversial and perhaps often votes against popular candidates. Such a policy in practice would empower troublesome users such as Wik or Entmoots of Trolls. I would readily support Warofdreams if they have a change of heart. --"D ICK " C HENEY  20:49, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) I too respectfully oppose. I beleive Hcheney's assessment is correct. &rarr;Raul654 21:50, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral
 * (was oppose) Warofdreams did not answer my questions. --"D ICK " C HENEY 15:42, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * You only asked them yesterday you haven't given him very long to think of an answer. theresa knott 18:02, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * They are good questions which got me thinking. I've now answered them at User talk:Hcheney.  Don't hesitate if you have any more questions; I can't promise you how quickly I'll answer but I'll do it as soon as I can. Warofdreams 18:14, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Discussion (from User talk:Hcheney)

Do you support adminship being widespread and generally "no big deal" or do you feel adminship should be more exclusive?
 * I think that adminship is often seen as a vote of trust by the community in a user. In many cases, it encourages the newly promoted admin to do more maintainance work, particularly as they are able to delete pages (whether speedily or from vfd). This should be encouraged and spread around. I don't want to see an exclusive group of admins built up which new users feel intimidated by, and I don't think that the fairly rapid increase in the number of admins over the past year has caused problems - on the contrary, it has kept Wikipedia well maintained. Warofdreams 18:02, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As a bureaucrat would you give controversial user's and troll's votes equal weight to the votes of respected contributors?
 * I think a bureaucrat's role is to be as impartial as possible, and therefore I would treat every vote equally when deciding whether there was a consensus. Elections don't work on the principle of weighting respected citizen's votes more highly than those of dubious character, and neither should this page. Besides, almost every user on the requests for adminship page attracts enough votes that one or two users I might consider controversial or a troll cannot change a clear consensus into a split vote, or vice versa. Warofdreams 18:02, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. I am very concerned about your idealistic, though very noble and principaled, view of voting.


 * Elections don't work on the principle of weighting respected citizen's votes more highly than those of dubious character, and neither should this page.

In the US state of Florida, which is the home of the Wikimedia Foundation and myself, the priviledge of voting is in fact denied to dubious characters (or at least dubious characters that happen to be convicted felons, even after release from prison). As I have said below in Cecropia's comment section, the most well qualified candidates seem to attract trolls and controversial users to their request for adminship like meat attracts flies. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has more than one or two problem users, and given the relatively low turnout for RfA elections and the mandate for 75-80% support, they could easily influence elections. Would you support allowing other bureaucrats weighing the votes of trolls and controversial users differently than that of regular users? Would you object to the arbitration committee or other approved body disenfranchising users? Would you allow political ideology to come into play in your duties as a bureaucrat? --"D ICK " C HENEY 18:46, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that disenfranchising voters by an agreed procedure is an entirely different matter to asking a bureaucrat to decide how heavily to weight votes. If users try to disrupt the voting procedure, then in my opinion they should risk disenfranchisement.  I also agree that there is a "grey area" for requests which achieve slightly less than 80% support, and do not object to bureaucrats following agreed policy and using their judgement in promoting users in these cases.  What I would object to is simply deciding to ignore votes against because a voter is controversial and perhaps often votes against popular candidates.  I don't believe that is likely to happen.  I'm not sure what you mean by your last question; I would certainly not be any more or less likely to promote users on the basis of their political ideology.

I'm also quite concerned about this user's responses, as established Wikipedia policy (regarding a Beauracrat's job) says the exactly the opposite. &rarr;Raul654 18:53, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)