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
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion (from User talk:Hcheney#Bureaucratship questions)
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?
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.
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? -- "DICK" CHENEY 18:46, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm also quite concerned about this user's responses, as established Wikipedia policy (regarding a Beauracrat's job) says the exactly the opposite. →Raul654 18:53, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
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
Oppose
Neutral
Discussion (from User talk:Hcheney#Bureaucratship questions)
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?
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.
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? -- "DICK" CHENEY 18:46, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm also quite concerned about this user's responses, as established Wikipedia policy (regarding a Beauracrat's job) says the exactly the opposite. →Raul654 18:53, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)