User talk:Cecropia

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Welcome to my Talk Page. Please use the box above, or manually enter new messages at the end of my page so I can find them easily. Thanks!

Please see archives for earlier talk. If you wish to add to a conversation already archived, please copy only that item from the archive to active talk, and then respond here. If you respond in the archive I may never see it.

March 2004 and earlier | April 2004 | May 2004 | June 2004

July 2004 | August 2004 | September 2004 | October 2004 | November 2004 | December 2004

January 2005 | February 2005 | March 2005 | April 2005 | May 2005 | June 2005

July 2005 | August-September 2005 | October-December 2005

January 2006

Hollow Wierding RFA

Whoops, edited right after you punched something in without noticing. Could you fix that please? Not sure what to do ^_^;--Tznkai 21:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

hey

If you really wanted to, could you (+sysop) an anon ip?--64.12.116.10 04:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Two different questions: (1) Is it technically possible? Probably not, since the permissions are based on username. But only a developer knows for sure. (2) If it were possible, a bureaucrat who intentionally did that would become an ex-bureaucrat pretty fast. -- Cecropia 04:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, but wouldn't the fallout from such an action be humorous enough to justify the consequences? (;152.163.100.130 21:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, and a question re RfAdmin

Hello I hope you're well. I've a small question, more about process than anything. Nightstallion's RfAdmin was successful and was indicated to end at 12:23 on 3 January 2006 (UTC). However, the tally includes a vote logged after the specified timeframe. Is this proper, i.e., should the tally only include votes made within the timeframe – 55/13/3? While I strongly supported his RfAdmin and I realise this is now fait accompli (and perhaps minuscule), I would advance such a position no matter what the vote was. Anyhow, thanks for your consideration. E Pluribus Anthony 23:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for your response: I appreciate it! I knew there was a rationale, but it just struck me as odd to continue counting votes beyond the timeframe.

Similarly, given your knowledge of votes, perhaps I can solicit your feedback regarding a non-RfAdmin vote I'm involved in. There has been a long-standing issue about whether the Darth Vader article should be one article or two (accommodating for his younger/other self, Anakin Skywalker). It was once two articles and merged after (I think) insufficient input. With this in mind and given the apparently circuitous discussions occurring, I weighed in, and later called for an RfC and vote to settle the issue.

The RfC/poll has garnered significant input and discussion, and not without some bumps along the way. As of the vote closing, 48 Wikipedians have indicated the following:

• 21 (44%) support 1 article, of whom:

• 9 (19%) support it as is, at Darth Vader
• 9 (19%) support having it at Anakin Skywalker
• 3 (6%) support either, a hybrid, or undefined

• 26 (54%) support 2 articles, one each for DV and AS
• 1 (2%) has abstained

The two-article option has garnered a majority; moreover, a consensus does not support the status quo (if you also consider that a number of the one-article supporters prefer the title to be Anakin Skywalker instead), but the margin of the vote pro forma is not readily apparent as a consensus, i.e., a supermajority. I will be preparing a summary of this shortly.

So: do you think it is still appropriate to proceed with the split, framing it as above? Mind you, if the one-article option was the overwhelming favourite, we would not be having this discussion. :)

I want to proceed carefully and not necessarily be divisive (no pun intended), but feel that the results of the vote should guide our collective actions. I look forward to your input, but will not take offense if you're unable to comment or don't want to get involved. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 08:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks again for your opinions and insight. I have no Padme or Leia in my dominion and sometimes view holorecordings alone (by choice), but I agree with you otherwise and will proceed as indicated. :)

And while I availed upon you for a 'third-party' technical opinion (given your expertise and closure of RfAdmin votes), please feel free to weigh in on the issue (if so compelled) at the RfC/poll (link above). (For control purposes, though, I will only include and summarise those votes logged in 2005 (as advertised) unless there's somehow a dramatic shift any which way.) And may the Force be with you. E Pluribus Anthony 09:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. While somewhat ambivalent initially regarding this dichotomy and there are a host of reasons on either side of the fence, I was since emboldened for the dual option. And the only thing that Spaceballs did for me, coupled with the Star Wars saga, was reinforce the notion that Mr. Vader's helmet is reminiscent of a certain male tissue ... or that there are a plethora of humanoids that deserve that comparison. Anyhow, thanks again for ... giving head! :) E Pluribus Anthony 09:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

RfB Quadell

Sorry about that change, I misread the page and thought that User:Carl Sagan's vote had been included in the total. My error. EdwinHJ | Talk 10:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Request regarding ArbComm elections

Hello! Thanks again for your feedback regarding our favourite Sith Lord.

As well, I've another request. I've been involved in helping to provide form and function to the upcoming Arbitration Committee (ArbComm) elections, including rules which Jimbo has edited and, thus, effectively endorsed. All of this is rooted in prior polls and later discussions which are still underway: these have generally been productive but haven't been completely painless. Nonetheless, a mild log-jam has occurred regarding an open-election procedure, and the discussion is now getting rather repetitive. (As per Jimbo's fiat, an open process closely and reasonably modelled on the RfAdmin process is IMO fait accompli.) In any event ...

the elections are slated to start on Mon., but nobody as yet – uninvolved admins/bureaucrats, importantly – seems willing to exhibit leadership to orchestrate everything and ensure an effective election. I'm a lowly Wikipedian and have neither the authority nor time to move things forward effectively.

So, are you willing or able to do so or to assist? I think, after a thorough read, this would involve configuring ArbComm vote pages before Sun. and monitoring them throughout the election (two weeks) to ensure Wp norms of behaviour are adhered to.

If you can't or won't, I understand, and feel free to weigh in. Let me know if you've any questions; thanks again for your consideration and anticipated co-operation! E Pluribus Anthony 10:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for closing my Rfa and giving me the welcome. :) I will try to do my best here as admin. One question, am I allowed to protect my Rfa page? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Question about my nomination for bureaucratship

Greetings. I left a question here for you and/or any other bureaucrats about my nomination. Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 02:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for your thoughtful reply. Although the outcome was frustrating for me personally, I have to agree that you did the right thing. Your explanation helped me understand why you interpreted the results as a lack of concensus. I hope to emulate this when my decisions are challenged.

This experience also brought to mind some improvements that could help the bureaucrat-promotion process for candidates in the future. I mentioned them here, and I'd be interested in your views. Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 23:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Inactive Bureaucrats

I was going to also list Angela (don't kill me wikicommunity) and Ilyanep too, but put it up to discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Bureaucrats. Are they active in renames? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther and the Jews Talk

Dear Cecropia: I have been in conversation with an editor with admin privileges concerning when to remove materials that link to materials I believe to be infringing the copyright of a publisher and other issues. Would you do me a favor and advise if my actions are out of line? Thanks! --CTSWyneken 23:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The work is On the Jews and Their Lies There are two full copies of Martin Brecht's translation of this work. There is one file with excerpts in it (which you have seen on the On the Jews page). I've logged my research into the status of these files at: Talk:Martin Luther/Copyright of Luther's Works Over the past few weeks, user Doright has many times tried to insert a link to the full versions of these files. The latest attempt is to quote the introduction by the scholar who may be infringing. I and others have deleted the external link every time we've seen it and replaced it with a reference to the printed set. For the sake of peace, I have not addressed this user for weeks. He has asked a number of admins to step in. The latest actually has done so. I'm hoping to get the eyes of someone not directly involved in it to take a look and advise me if I'm out of line. To that end, I've also invited Eloquence to take a look at the copyright issue. --CTSWyneken 00:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the page at Forham is infringing. If Augsburg Fortress is to be believed, all full copies of this translation on the internet are infringing. --CTSWyneken 03:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Volume 47, the one in which On the Jews appears, was first published in 1971. The confusion comes from the history of the set. The two publishing houses reponsible for the work began publishing volumes from the set in the 1950s. In libraries which have the complete set, most catalog the set as a whole. So the library record shows a publication date beginning with the year the first volume was published. The copyright history is completely different. Each volume was registered separately, as it was published. So, the volume in question was copyrighted 1971. I have the physical volume, the title page confeirms this.

In the decades that have followed its publication, Congress has several times expanded the duration of copyright. In one of these acts, it automatically renewed all of the copyrights of works first published from 1964 (I think) to the effective date of the current law, which gives copyright protection for at first 50 years and now 70 years after the death of the author. If you'd like, I can give links to copyright office to confirm this.

So, yes, the work is protected by copyright. --CTSWyneken 11:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Newest Reply

First of all, let me thank you for speaking rationally with me. It is good to converse with someone who knows something about these issues.

Now, on to the work itself. If this were a revision of a previous version, you would be correct. But the whole translation is new. This is the first translation ever made of On the Jews. If you'd like to see that in print, it is in the translator's introduction of the work, the first page of that intro. As the Project Wittenberg Coordinator, I'm on the look out for public domain versions of the text to place in our text archive online.

It is in that context that I first wondered about the online versions of this book. a decade agon,I approached Augsburg Fortress about allowing me to post other works under their copyright. They told me it was their policy never to grant permission to place American Editon works on the internet. They hastened to point out that the first few volumes of the Philadelphia Editon are public domain and the base from which many of the American Editon works. I was free, they said, to use these of course, but not the revised versions (which are subtly updated) in the American Edition.

When these texts first popped up on the internet, about five years ago, I tried to contact the people responsible. I received no response at all from Paul Halsall. Another site tried to convince me the work was in the public domain. I contacted Augsburg, which insisted that it was still protected and they did not grant permission to post it.

I let it go until the issue reemerged when I started editing wiki articles a few years ago. The editor who posted it and I went back and forth on it, and concluded by allowing me to remove the link. That was all until this whole issue errupted again a few months ago. I reviewed my research, asked friends on the CNI-Copyright email list, who pointed out to me that Congress renewed all works automatically published in the middle 60s to the advent of the copyright revision acts of the 70's-90's. With the constant accusations leveled against me by user Doright, I've again tried to contact the Forham people. Forham told me they are not responisble for the site. The host it for Paul Halsall. I tried to contact him, but have received no answer. In the process, I discovered he is no longer in higher education. I asked a library listserv for contacts at the Internet Medieval Sourcebook. I found someone there who said they would check the files for me this week or shortly after.

As far as the legality of linking in general, it is likely legal, as you observed. The issue is not settled yet; lawyers for publishers and websites are sitting there, stareing at each other. (I'll bet you've seen that look) All the decisions so far are on the distict court level and that is technically not a precident. Still it indicates what courts might do being handed the case.

Linking to infringing sites, however, has been decided against twice in two separate, low level federal courts. In Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse, a district court found that it was likely that Utah Lighthouse would be found as contributing to infringement by encouraging people to violate the copyright holder's exclusive rights. In the case against those providing decryption software for DVDs, the court found in favor of the recording industry's argument that linking to the site containing the software encouraged infringement. While not yet law, it does not bode well. Lawyers are trying this charge out more and more these days.

So, what has this to do with us? In WP:COPY#Linking to copyrighted works, it is stated policy that we not link to infringing sites. --CTSWyneken 16:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! What's Next With This Issue?

Thanks! I was beginning to think I was crazy! This has to be quick -- my son is working on an english paper... Would you be willing to say on the Martin Luther and the Jews page that you agree with me, having reviewed the matter? That would help. If need be, I'll also email Mr. Wales. What I will do (again) is repeat that I have no problem with a link to the excerpt page. It is likely fair use, although it is much larger a selection than is normally needed. In addition, Paul Halsall is not necessary to establish the scholarly opinion that is quoted. If I don't miss my guess, Halsall's intro is there, too. So there's a strong argument that page is legal and linkable. Better yet, for the text of the treatise, all we need to do is make the reference to the physical volume.

As far as outnumbered... there are at least two other users that have helped my excise these references. The place where I'm outgunned is that one of the folks insistent on linking is an admin. I'm also hoping to hear from Eloquence on the matter.

There is another issue I've been challenged on at the same page, but I think I can handle that, as long as I can find a way to do it without speaking to user Doright. He pushes my buttons too much for me to engage him directly and maintain peace. Enough for now. --CTSWyneken 23:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, --CTSWyneken 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Amityville Horror

When I happened upon this article, I noticed it was in need of some major expansion and revision, so I spent about two hours editing, trying to vet all of the claims that it made. By that time you had made some changes, and I accidentally erased them when I saved my version (I wish this computer screen could convey my contrition). I tried to restore the ones I thought were useful, but if you disagree with what I ended up with, please let me know (I don't want to seem like a POV pusher...).

Cheers Gershwinrb 09:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Repromotion

Thanks! I'd been craving that rollback feature. Sarge Baldy 07:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You seem...

...to like poems. Check out this!:)

BTW...glad you promoted Francs2000. I was a little nervous when it seemed like the last nominee was about to get promoted, considering that he rarely even voted in RfA. I though my vote wouldn't make a difference but it did.

BTW(#2), I noticed that half of the bcrats are inactive. If they choice to desysop, I might be willing to support RfBs more (although I did support Francs2000).

BTW(#3), can bcrats change their own usergroup down? That would be weird as they couldn't undo it.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 17:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Note that the boxes look skrewy in IE, use FireFox!Voice of All^T|@|ESP 17:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Bad decision !

Hi Cecropia: When most people log on they are taken to the Main Page, and the ArbCom vote link should be on EVERY article, putting it on watchlists marginalizes it, and if you have a rule that users need to be active for a few months then their vote won't be registered regardless of what page they come from. At this stage it's more important to educate new users and the public about an important vote taking place within Wikipedia than to have the request for MONEY on every page which makes Wikipedia look greedy after they just raised around $300,000, don't you think? Get rid of the merchandising and commercializing junk and mention the ArbCom stuff that is more to the core of what Wikipedia is about, a participatory effort and not just a scheme to raise money. Some of us are having trouble writing and editing articles with that flashing "Dollar sign" on top of every page. I hope you understand the importance of this. It's about the kind of image Wikipedia wants to project about itself, and someone has made a bad decision here lately it seems to me. IZAK 18:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

User Doright

I'm trying to find a way to stay patient with the user, but the constant attacks on my character is wearing me down. Would you look at his posts on Talk:Martin Luther, Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews and On the Jews and Their Lies? The first question is: does he have a point? If so, I'll apologize to him. If not, what would you advise? Reasoning with him doesn't work, ignoring him doesn't seem to work. I'm trying to decide if an RfC is in order. --CTSWyneken 00:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll await your opinion. Two other users feel similarly, although we were hoping not engaging him would help. If you think I have some fault, I'd rather remedy this, even if we do proceed. If you have some suggestion as to what we might try short of this, I'd rather try this first. --CTSWyneken 00:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... to be honest, I haven't looked at the possible resolution steps. What typically is the best thing to do at this stage? I was hoping by not feeding him, he'd calm down, which appears not to be the case. I wasn't aware that there was a step in between here that we could go to. I really would like him to go back to just advocating his POV and stop attacking. I can handle that. --CTSWyneken 02:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll try that before an RfC. I'll wait, though, for you to examine my actions and words before I go there. My Lutheran and seminary training tells me to tend to my sins before approaching others. There must be something in all my stuff that I shouldn't be doing. I can then try one more informal approach to him to see if he'll tone things down. Then, if that doesn't work, find an arbitrator.

Another test is on the radar screen. He put back the paragraph that supposedly gave Robert Michael's view of Luther scholars, although this time he cited his source -- an abstract in a database. I verified it, corrected the footnote and ammended the paragraph so it made clear that the words were those of an abstractor for a database entry. I restored the quotation marks in the last sentence that appeared in the abstract, indicating Michael's actual words. When I get to the library this morning, I will check the abstractor's work. I'm suspicious, because Michael, always a gentleman, never levels any of the accusations in the first sentence. The closest he gets is wondering why the translator of one of the sermons of Luther abridged the sermon and calling it bawlderized (sp.?) In fact, he treats all of the Luther's scholars with respect, even though he believes and forcefully states his case. Would that Luther and his oppenents were so kind.

Anyway, he typically goes ballistic when we so much as correct his spelling. --CTSWyneken 10:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Punkmorten

Hi, the RFA I set up for Punkmorten needs closing, can you look at it? Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, from the bureaucrat log, I see you have been doing a lot of this lately. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFR

Hello, Cecropia. At Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback privileges, there's a question as to who would be best suited to grant the rollback button. Since it is expected to be granted (and removed) liberally, it would result in much more work for bureaucrats, and there's a proposal to allow admins to grant it. As a bureaucrat, do you think that is a good idea? Also, do you think that if bureaucrats are the ones who should take care of that, that Wikipedia is going to need a few more bureaucrats? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith

It would be greatly appreciated if you would use a more civilised tone. Hall Monitor 23:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict!

See: User talk:Wgfinley =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No I didn't. Since you beat me to the promotion be a few seconds, I decided against getting into a few more edit conflicts.  :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

RFA Summary

In case you haven't seen it, you may find this page useful: User:Dragons flight/RFA summary

Of course, numerical summaries are not the same as consensus, but they are a starting point. Dragons flight 17:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

First timer

Hi Cecropia, could you please second-judge my first two bureaucrat actions and make sure I made the right decisions? To explain my decisions, Alex Bakharev did not gather an 80% consensus, regardless of whether or not the alledged sockpuppet acitivity was taken into account; and although Banno's support was only 25 strong, she still managed to get an 80% consensus and there isn't, as far as I'm aware, a policy decision on the minimum number of support votes a user should receive (although I have noticed the discussion on the talk page). Anyway please let me know what you think! Many thanks. -- Francs2000 02:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Assisting with Self-Examination

Dear Cecropia: Thanks for the assistance! The pages where I have interaction with Doright, which is the most appropriate place for examination are: Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews, Talk:Martin Luther and On the Jews and Their Lies. On the middle page, I was engaged also in a discussion with SlimVirgin, who felt I was over aggressive with my edits. I'm looking for a neutral observer to tell me if I went over the line. The idea is to apologize if I need to, to adjust my style and approach, if necessary to be a better member of the wiki community. I'm not necessarily sure I've been over the line, but I can't imagine I do not need to improve somewhere. Since I tell counselees to look to their own failings before pointing out others, I want to take my own advice, in case I need to talk to Doright about his. Don't feel like you have to look at it all, just enough to get an impression of me in my wiki incarnation. --CTSWyneken 03:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Question

I have received a question from Lucky 6.9 by email, asking how he goes through the process of getting de-sysoped. The thing is, I've had a look at the requests for de-adminship page and there doesn't appear to be a set process so I don't really know how to handle the enquiry. Could you possibly advise what the process would be, so that I can let him know by email (preferred)? -- Francs2000 23:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

BRT and rail

Hi there! I may not have phrased my edit on this subject most felicitously -- I was talking not just of immediate "bustitutions" creating BRT lines out of functioning rail transit, but also of using disused rail right of way formerly belonging to passenger of freight intercity lines. LA's Orange Line, for instance, is built mostly out of old freight right of way, and I believe part of Maryland's plan for the Bicounty Transitway (formerly the "Purple Line," before it got BRT'd) involves ex-rail ROW now given over to the rails-to-trails program. This sort of disused or underused rail ROW is always looked at in new transit projects because its acquisition and transformation is orders of magnitude cheaper than building a new grade-separated route. --Jfruh 17:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Dates

Sorry about that - been at work all day. Have you had any thoughts on what I can say to Lucky 6.9? Is it just as simple as me de-sysoping him on request? -- Francs2000 22:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/William M. Connolley 2

suggest you reclose it (revert it). someone must of been editing when you closed it, and it got unclosed. GangofOne 17:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. Dragons flight already did it. GangofOne 17:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip and the action! -- Cecropia 17:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

A cup of coffee, since you mentioned a shortage! (Coffee is my friend too.) -- KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Java

Regarding your theory: The world as we know it may not come to an end if coffee were banned, but my productivity probably would! KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Today, you closed my successful RfA at 48/3/1. However, that should be 47/3/1, since User:Gryffindor voted twice (January 7th and January 13th). Just thought I'd let you know ;) Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 21:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Dylan

I don't know the song, but it looked like there's a word missing from the Dylan song lyrics on your user page - surely it's "if I could hear her heart a-softly poundin'". Looked it up - seems to be so. Didn't want to change it - feel bad about editing other people's user pages. Love Dylan, by the way - would love to get hold of that album the song is off - Through a Bullet of Light, no? Cormaggio ^@ 22:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, how about Nashville Skyline for some love songs? And that album, Bullet of Light, was pretty early, 1963, as far as my light-speed search went.. Cormaggio ^@ 02:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you've inspired me to catch up on a bit more Dylan - I don't even own Blonde on Blonde myself <duck>. And you're right, that album was of bootleg songs, but not The_Bootleg_Series_Volumes_1-3_(Rare_&_Unreleased)_1961-1991 (which doesn't have Tomorrow is a Long Time). But first, I need to catch up on some sleep (GMT here).. Cormaggio ^@ 03:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Quoting User Talk Pages on Article Talk Pages

Would you take a look at the On the Jews and Their Lies talk page? Doright has responded to a formal warning by copying and pasting from personal talk pages to this page. Is this against the rules or any unwritten code? It makes me wonder if I should post anything on personal talk pages at all. If it is, should I ask him to stop or would it be better coming from another? --CTSWyneken 02:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

What is happening is that StanZegel has gotten tired of being abused. He formally warned Doright on his home page and the Luther and the Jews related pages. Doright has replied by scouring our talk pages to find blowing off steam comments in which he said uncomplementary things about Doright. I guess what Doright is arguing is that it is OK for him to abuse Stan because Stan said unkind things about him on our talk pages. He's trying to tarnish Stan's image in the more public pages to secure sympathy. Or at least that's the way I read it. --CTSWyneken 03:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right about it not having to do with anything in what StanZegel has asked of Doright. --CTSWyneken 03:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

IRC

Can we chat on IRC? Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 16:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Luigi

I responded to both users who enquired about it - Carbonite and Xoloz. See this diff for a brief explanation. Regards — Dan | talk 18:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Jtkiefer bcrat nom

I don't know why you removed my nom but I just wanted to let you know that I have put it back up since I have no issue with it going through for the full 7 days. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 17:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If it gets nasty I'll be the first to get rid of it, but since that isn't the case at the moment I think it should stay up. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 17:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Or to put it another way

...don't look at that page if you're in an already stressful environment like your workplace, as you can find yourself taking it out on a talk page and getting yourself into a deep argument you can't get out of. Time to go do something else, methinks. -- Francs2000 17:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm going home, then I'm eating dinner while watching CSI, then I'm going to bed. But much the same thing, at the end of the day. -- Francs2000 18:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

My RfB

Hi Cecropia. I'm afraid I have a problem to discuss. It would appear that, considering that the vote cast by a notorious troll would not be considered (the "new Boothy", as noted in the RfB by BD2412, not myself), I would have an 80% consensus, which is what the rules deem sufficient for promotion. It's really too bad that my RfB had to end in a close call, but stil... Regards, Redux 10:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, and I pretty much knew that the decision had been based on that item on the "Instructions to sysoping someone". However, I am obliged to bring up that what's stated there is a matter of historic record. The rule, however, states, in the RfB page (which is the RfA forum, of course, in the section pertaining to RfB) that the procedure for RfB is the same as that for RfA, and that means that 80% is sufficient consent to promote — I would concur that, for RfBs, there'd be no leeway for the whole 75%-79% consensus, but that's not even the case. The rules need to be set in advance and be openly displayed. If the community felt/feels that the minimum consensus for Bureaucratship should be 90%, and that opposition cannot be in excess of an X amount, than this should have been made into an specific RfB rule and put forth in the page. When I started my RfB, I was shooting for a 80% approval rate, which is immensily difficult to obtain as it is (in an "election" with a minimum consensus that high, every single "oppose" vote can offset several "support" votes), especially with a small, but significant group of users systematically opposing every candidate, regardless of merit, suitability and so on. I got all of those automatic "oppose" votes (which I consider legitimate, however, since the voters went on the record with their reasons — I might not agree with them, but I respect them), which were nine, and plus a completely bogus oppose vote from the "new Boothy". In spite of that, I still managed to get an 80% consensus, again, as required by the rules set forth in the RfA forum. I must urge you to reconsider. Thanks, Redux 17:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey Cecropia. It's uncanny, but I actually got the "big yellow warning" about new messages as I was opening your talk page. I have not yet read your message, but I want to post this beforehand: after I posted the above request, I did some reading, and a lot of thinking, and I can see how your hands would be tied in this. That being the case, I am dropping this for good. I do, however, believe that the procedure is fundamentally flawed — when I have some time, I'll try to write something expanding on this, and post it on my user page, or maybe at the RfA talk page (although I believe some people will not like it). You are a stand-up guy and an asset to Wikipedia, I just wanted to make this crystal clear. Thank you for your time and consideration. Redux 22:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. I just read that previous post from you, and the latest one too (I actually got an edit conflict because of it). From your original post, it seems that you might have misunderstood me in my original request for revision. You felt that I was trying to set policy, when what I was trying to say is that I felt that policy would dictate a different outcome (but I've since reconsidered, in the sense that I understand that there are many other factors at stake). Well, I posted a clarification on my talk page (in order to keep things closer together), feel free to drop by and read it, if you want to.
And thank you for your words of support (I'm sure Quadrell would appreciate it too). And just for fun: if I had been promoted, you wouldn't have to worry about me making some crazy, newbie decisions, since I'd be all over your hair for advice on my early days — it's like I said a few days ago, you'd probably get a mug to go along with that T-shirt for that. Regards, Redux 23:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, if you do drop by, look for that clarification here. I've done some reorganizing, to keep it somewhat orderly over at my talk page. Thanks, Redux 23:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Very well said. I too have a bunch of ideas about how we could get RfA back on track, but I think they'd throw me into a tank filled with hungry sharks before any of those ideas got implemented. In fact, I actually believe that all the instances where users get to vote could stand to be improved dramatically. Are you seeing what's going on at the ArbCom elections? Unbelievable stuff. Redux 01:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Doright uses Talk page to attack User

Would you check the talk page to catagory Antisemitism (people) Doright has copied personal messages from a user's personal talk page to attack him for removing the catagory from the Martin Luther page. I removed this attack and he has restored it. I would like your opinion before I warn him formally against such things. I had thought he was trying to do better, but it appears he is returning to his own ways. --CTSWyneken 22:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

On this same talk page, Doright has now used language towards me that I'm inclined to take as a personal attack. Am I imagining things? I thought he was getting better. If this continues, I may take formal steps and want to be sure from an objective POV that I'm not imagining things. I will give it about a week for my own emotions to calm down. Then, if it continues, I'll look for a mediator or other such person to help. --CTSWyneken 11:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Psst...

<whisper> You put Eureka's congrats on the RfA's talk page instead of her talk page. Just a heads up. </whisper> --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for closing my RfA. FYI, I adjusted the final tally to take out a duplicate vote. NoSeptember ^talk 11:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

It doesn't matter; I didn't expect to get admin anyway. Thanks for closing the vote, anyway. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 22:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

CSCWEM RfA

Cake for Cecropia!

Whew, that's a lot of letters. In any case, I thought a 76% was good enough to pass? (See Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Luigi30_3.) And it's more than a bit unusual that a candidate with well over 100 votes failed. I'm not upset, though I do disagree with the decision as the decision was the proper one to make, considering the Neutral votes. Cheers! —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Seconded, User talk:Can't sleep, clown will eat me#Your RfA NSLE _(T+C) 03:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Luigi's nomination was a clear error by a new Bcrat. It is not a precedent. -- Cecropia 03:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it was a fair call. If you read the many Neutral votes, there was a strong reluctance to promote someone here so short a time even among those who couldn't bring themselves to vote Oppose. Can't sleep... will sail through next time. NoSeptember ^talk 03:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't. I just wanted clarification, and I think I have it, pretty much. It was very much a judgment call by the closing 'crat. In fact, Cecropia, here's a slice of cake for doing your job the way you're supposed to! —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yay! I can add that to the cup of coffee KillerChihuahua gave me. -- Cecropia 03:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Seeking guidance

I am seeking your guidance and advice on a particular issue. Mahuri page on wikipedia was initiated by me, and I have contributed to the page from time to time. As per policy of the wikipedia anyone can use the contents of wikipedia, but I understand that use of such contents should indicate the source, that is, the wikipedia. The contents of the page Mahuri have been used in the site mahurivaisya without giving any reference to wikipedia - though I am glad that they have used our contents. In this case, a problem may arise at a future date if that website takes a stand that the contents of page Mahuri on wikipedia have been copied from that site and thus violates copyrights. In an alternative scenario, a user here may tag our Mahuri page with copyright violation under the impression that our contents have been copied from that site, reference to which was given by me long back as an external link when that site was not active and having only a welcome page. Although I am not aware of any such issue, which wikipedians may have encountered in the past, I believe that such a situation may have arisen earlier too. I seek your advice and guidance to deal with this issue, which you are requested to kindly post my talk page please. I also utilize this opportunity to say Hello to you. Thanks. --Bhadani 13:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for your kind message and suggestions as regards Mahuri. I am always cheerful while doing anything on wikipedia, and you have made me more cheerful. Thanks again, and it was nice meeting you. --Bhadani 16:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

You are invited to take part in Wikipedia_talk:Changing username#Dropping inactive user names. Ems2 17:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Joke137

Ummm, did you forget to notify Joke when you promoted him? Dragons flight 14:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the close! Should you have any questions, comments, or concerns in the future regarding my actions as editor or administrator, please feel free to contact me posthaste. Regards, —bbatsell ¿? 04:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Vietnam photos

I don't have time for an exhaustive search right now (it's bedtime where I live) but I might suggest http://naa12.naa.gov.au/scripts/PhotoSearchSearch.asp or even calling them on ++63(02) 6212 3600 as I doubt anyone can be sure what search terms to check under. The French National Archive is available at http://www.archivesnationales.culture.gouv.fr/chan/. I obviously can't guarentee either will have the desired photos but it seems to me a logical place to start. Even if they don't have actual pictures themselves I find it hard to believe the French didn't have any documentation of atrocities to back up their propaganda campaign for entering the war in the first place (before the US became involved) so they may have other sources such as news paper reporters that they could put any would be researcher on to. Which probably means, come to think of it, that a quick phone call to the Associated Press, might not hurt either.

Hope that helps. Coricus 18:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Message from the Kindness Fairy

Hello Cecropia. In honor of Random Acts of Kindness week, I want to express appreciation for your dedication to managing the RFA process. You've been the welcome wagon for new admins for so long, it is hard to imagine what promotion could have been like before you got the button. Thanks for all your effort and sense in managing one of Wikipedia's core functions. The Kindness Fairy 02:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

File:Plunger 250x410.jpg

Thanks for welcoming me to the fold of administrators. I'll do my level best to use the mop and bucket — or, as I said in my RfA, plunger — responsibly. Of course, in the best tradition of politicans everywhere, I've already broken a campaign promise and blocked a vandal (after I said "I don't anticipate using the blocking tool very often"). Nevertheless, I'll try not to let the unbridled power corrupt me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for your congratulations and doing the final "admin stuff" on my request for adminship.

Regarding my name - I'm a friend to elves ... the funny thing is, it is not really a nom de Wiki, as it is the meaning of my real name, Alwyn. (See [1].)

Kind Regards, Elf-friend 10:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sprotection and Jew

Hi Cecropia. I saw your comment last you protected, yes. I don't think the analogies are quite right: the KKK for example are/were determined and in for the long-haul whereas most vandals are bored teenagers/people on a drive-by. Today's visitor to Jew for example could and should have adequately been blocked without needing any further restrictions on others' editing. The semi-protection on George W. Bush has resulted in a marked drop in vandalism but also a marked drop in non-vandal edits (the stats are on the talk page or its archives) — I guess this is what I see as the cost of semi-protection. Even on article as detailed as that, there is still good stuff that can be done by new and/or anonymous editors. The same must surely be true of Jew. I've also argued, indirectly at times, that we shouldn't semi-protect articles where it is not clear when the protection might be lifted; this is a wiki, after all and we have encyclopedia-based (i.e. non-community-based) problems more serious and hard to fix than vandals. I've said that if people are asking for protection, they should be clear on when we can unprotect, and, if that point in time can't be identified, then (semi-)protection is not a solution we should use. As you say, Jews aren't getting any less 'famous' and so I'm inclined to think we should just handle the vandals as we have for a long time. We should semi-protect when there's a particular attack that can't be handled with the usual revert+block tools. I think, if I read your note on my talk page right, that you'd argue the other way: that semi-protection can, and indeed should, be used in indeterminate cases precisely because they are 'vandal magnets'. I've yet to persuaded to that case — this is a wiki, after all, and if you can't make that first "oh surely I can't fix that comma...oh!...I can!" edit on the article you come to (which is likely a high-profile one), you must be that much less likely to dive in. It's an encyclopedia too, of course, but an encyclopedia written as a wiki; the two concepts do not seperate. -Splash^talk 22:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, I am just writing to say thanks for closing off on my RfA and welcoming me to the ranks of administrators. I hope I do well with the tools and will be sure to carefully read the instructions before trying anything tricky/irreversable. Thanks agin. --Martyman-(talk) 06:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Robert Byrd

Thanks for your work on cleaning up this page. As you could probably tell from the edit history, I had to remove that accusation twice (I felt that it was strong enough that it needed attribution to be in the article at all) and apparently on the third attempt someone decided to turn it into a personal attack against me.

I'll definitely be keeping an eye on it and doing what I can in my decidedly non-admin capacity to keep it factual.

Thanks again.

--BinaryTed 14:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Accounts

Here is a list of accounts to delete:

• • Ariele
  • User:Puss'nPurpleBoots
  • User:Ethanol Ariele's sockpuppet
  • User:Cap'nKrunch my sockpuppet

I suppose you could delete User:Goddess of War too, but it has a lovely thank you note from another user; a very sweet gesture, but if we are to vanish, well, we have to make sacrifices-Puss'nPurpleBoots 19:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Guidance

Since my RfA is going to be continually turned down, I could use some guidance. I did manage to get to support votes which was better than last time. Either way... guidance is requetsed. I choose you because it seems we may have some common ground. Thanks in advance. xerocs 17:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: You and Rudy

You and the former Mayor are Brooklynites and Yankee fans. 'Tis strange ... 'this passing strange. -- Cecropia 02:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I see Him at the game, too. It's not everyday You get a message from a user that can bless You with a promotion, let alone someone that knows about the Subway. :) -- Eddie 05:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for an opinion on Copyright

If you have a moment, would you look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lutheran_Church_-_Missouri_Synod#Use_of_Logo and give your opinion on the matter? --CTSWyneken 14:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the opinion. Thanks! I respect your analysis on this score. I'll drop a note to the appropriate person at LCMS and point them to the discussion. Their graphic standard explicitly says that no website use of the logo is permitted outside of LCMS organizations. I suspect they would not like it if we use it here. Since I'm, in effect, an officer of the Synod, it would make me quesy to use it counter their wishes. --CTSWyneken 16:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The Djr_xi RfA

Hi Cecropia. I just wanted to ask a question about the Djr_xi RfA. I'm not even an admin, much less a bureaucrat, so maybe I'm just not totally familiar with the process, but: Once the seven-day period has expired, why should any votes cast after that time be considered in the first place, but particularly when those votes are the result of an obviously coordinated attack against the candidate? (Yes, I admit there is a tiny chance that this massive, near-instantaneous ballot stuffing could have occurred spontaneously, but the chances of that are so tiny as to be, for all practical purposes, zero.) It seems rather obvious, IMHO, that some group of editors, mostly admins, decided at the last minute to attempt to make an example of Djr_xi as part of the ongoing userbox war, and as such, I don't see how those can be considered good faith votes, particularly given that they were almost all made after the RfA would have been closed, had another bureaucrat happened to have counted them up a few hours earlier. --Aaron 14:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Further comment: It appears this revote may itself have been compromised to the point of invalidity. User:Kelly Martin put a block on User:Grue for voting support on this RfA in a way she didn't like. The block was quickly reverted, but the damage is done: Wikipedia users are now on notice that voting "support" is a good way to get banned. I now believe there is no way that User:Djr_xi can receive a fair vote, and I urge you to reconsider granting him adminship based on the unquestionably legitimate votes from the original RfA. (For the record, I do not know Djr_xi personally, and have no recollection of even having a single online communication with him on Wikipedia regarding any subject whatsoever.) --Aaron 15:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Likewise. He won, fair and square, and it smacks of something fishy that the rfa was held open just a bit longer for all those oppose votes to come in. I'm saddened, but this seems like another instance where there basically is no rule of law left anywhere on Wikipedia, and you're not judged on your merit, but rather on who you know, or if you can get people angry at something. Karmafist 18:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Now let's not get too carried away with conspiracy theories. Other bureaucrats and I check the RfA pages periodically and make promotions or removals as we see them. Sometimes this happens almost immediately, sometimes in hours. Very rarely has this gone more than a day. As I already told Aaron, this is the first time I can remember that votes received after closing time actually had potential to change the result. As it was (even without the extra votes) the vote was in an area of bureaucrat discretion. Only bureaucrats can definitively close or extend a nomination. Sometimes in an unclear vote, the vote will be held open for 24 or 48 hours by a bureaucrat(s) to try to get a clearer consensus but then those is publically announced. In any other case, including this one, no one is "holding open" any vote to try to get a desired result. -- Cecropia 19:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the RfA (and the re-RfA) is already moot. - Mailer Diablo 22:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Adminship should not be entry into a clique. The amount of gratuitous criticism is enough to flag this as a sham, the ballot stuffing just makes it a joke. I can't believe Admins are spending so much time on the drama of weel warring and userboxes, when Wikipedia has so many actual problems that need to be solved. ...I post vandalism in progress 5 times, no admin responds, yet when someone wants to put their opinion in a damn user box, all hell breaks loose.--Colle|File:Locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 04:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Not that it matters too much, but I think Mjal voted for me twice (#48 and 82) - I ran across it when going through the usual thank-you motions. If there are any bean-counters, record-keepers, or anyone like that who might care, it seems I only got 90 votes in support. Thanks for taking the time to promote me. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

My bad Mjal 22:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Request at meta

Your request at meta has been fulfilled. --Ascánder 22:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for promoting me!

I don't know if it's common practice to thank the bureaucrat who promoted you, but I will! I'll try to put the admin tools to good and responsable use. If I do anything wrong, you know where to find me. Raven4x4x 07:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Concern about a user

Cecropia - I noticed you've been closing recent RfAs, so I thought you might be able to help with my concern. I noticed that User:Zaheer89 has been voting 'oppose' on several recent RfAs with little explanation, and looking at their contribs, it looks like they may be a sockpuppet of a banned user. Specifically, the first two contribs are adding terrorists and criminals to the Islam in Australia list and with only 32 edits they have voted 'oppose' on 4 RfAs and 'delete' on 2 AfDs with no 'support' or 'keep' votes. What do you think? Are you able to check if they are using the same IP as a banned user? Thanks! -SCEhardT 15:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Your constant work

I, Quadell, award you this Golden Wiki Award for your constant work and dedication to the project.

Out of the blue, I wanted to give you this award. You've been both vigilant and unshakably fair on RfA, and you deserve commendation. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope Quadell won't mind if I second that. Whenever I see your user name, I know that the post or decision is going to be fair, reasonable, civil, and intelligent. Your presence and work are very much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for closing my RfA, the links and the new panel. I will put it to very good use.--Dakota ~ ° 09:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistency in RFA result top says successful/bottom says "did not succeed"

See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AYArktos. Paul foord 02:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Sprotection info

Thanks Cecropia,

Sprotection sounds like a good idea for some articles (like the Jew and Bush articles you mentioned).

Cheers PJB 18:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the solution on Cyde

I appreciate your kind resolve to find a solution, thank you very much. I apologize if I have caused you additional work (next time I'll nominate someone who signs with four tildes and has done!) KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

regarding the neutral tag

It was a minor misunderstanding... Whats the biggie

Re-tally, don't know if it matters

I noticed a user (User:EddieSegoura) voted twice on my rfa when handing out the thanks messages, probably by mistake, so it's actually (48/2/0) in case you want to change it. Oh, and thanks for the mop :) --Obli (Talk)^? 21:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: CTA Silver Line

Excuse me, there seems to have been a misunderstanding. All I did at the Silver Line article was linkify one term and re-sort the stub based on what I found in the article at the time. Looking in the history, however, this was immediately after a major revert, but this was done by User:Tedernst, not me. I'm sorry I seem to have stepped in to the middle of something, and I seem to have failed to check things out thoroughly enough, but to be honest I hadn't even considered the change worth much notice, and I have little to no knowledge of the CTA with which to evaluate the article. The combination of factors meant that I didn't even add the article to my watchlist. I hope your discussions with User:Tedernst are productive, and wish the both of you happy editing, in this article and others. --CComMack 06:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Eh, no problem. --CComMack 15:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Admin Needed

Please look at: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Str1977 At least I'm not a party in this one -- this time! --CTSWyneken 00:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

RfB

Thanks for moving the discussion. That wasn't the place to argue, heh. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I rather think it was, but I don't have a high enough edit-conflict tolerance to paste it in all over again. -Splash^talk 03:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see my comment at the RfB talk. I think this needs to go off center-stage, at least so far as the RfB is concerned. -- Cecropia 03:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

RFA promotions

This is the third time I've missed out by a whisker (<1min) while attempting to promoting someone. Sometimes please do give us unfortunate b'crats the chance to promote. ;) =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I was just saying to myself "Gee, Cecropia hasn't promoted anyone in 11 days, his longest absence since Nov/Dec" and then I see your note above :-). NoSeptember ^talk 16:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Jaranda RfA

Jaranda has withdrawn from his RfA. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 21:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, thanks!

Hi Cecropia! Thanks for promoting me and for the good wishes and advice. I won't let you down. Cheers! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Christian Peacemakers

With reference to your comment here, I thought it best to reply on your talk page since the discussion was getting further and further removed from the article content.

Anyway, I think that in taking the "anti-coalition" side, they are essentially assuming the invincibility of the other. They simply don't think the Americans need advocates, so they side with the 'underdog'.

My own opinion on this is best summed up by a quote from Orwell: "That is also a lie, but, taking the long view, it is a less pernicious lie than the other." --Saforrest 20:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I already replied on the article talk, q.v., but even deciding who is the "underdog" in such a situation is rather partisan in itself. -- Cecropia 21:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This is quickly descending into an unproductive (to the article) political discussion, which is why I tried to keep it on user talk pages.

I suspect that Iraq now is a difficult place to be in without taking sides. Perhaps the act of choosing a side and embracing a lie is destructive. But I don't understand why "these groups" are singly to blame: if the act of taking sides is "moral relativism", certainly the coalition forces have a taken side too.

Singly to blame? When did that become an issue? We are talking about this group because they are currently in the news, and for the other issues directly involved with them. We know the kidnappers are partisans. We know the American forces are partisans. But what is the group in question, which claims the mantle of "Christian peacemaker," injects their efforts and bodies into a combat situation with a clear bias, and then continues to sympathize with their kidnappers (who Apparently murdered one of their own) and curse the Coalition.

And the Coalition forces have taken a side? Well duh, they are combatants. The hostage-takers are combatants. Peacemakers one would expect neutrality from? If they are not neutral, they're partisans.

Maybe that's the issue. It's always been clear to me they were not neutral, and I don't understand why the expectation of neutrality exists. If you read their webpages about Iraq and Palestine, it's clear they're pretty far from neutral there.

My thinking is this: as far as the public statements of CPT goes, they have opted to ally themselves with nonviolent civilians of Iraq and Palestine, for good or for ill. (Stress nonviolent; they regard terrorism as a social ill created by the occupation a way that's a bit too equivocal for my taste, but they absolutely do not praise it.) Consistent with this allegiance is the fact that they condemn the occupation of Iraq, they refuse the help of the occupying army, and they do not thank them when the hostages are rescued. As I said before, that may make them suicidal and hated, but they do have at least have a consistent moral stance. (Not one I share, by the way: I'm not religious and their level of moral absolutism is not my style.) --Saforrest 00:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well that is an interesting turn of the conversation. You and I, who seem to have looked at the issue, may acknowledge that they are not neutral, but an expectation of neutrality, at least in the public arena, is suggested by two things: first, the name Christian Peacemaker Team conveys an impression of an organization promoting peace based on Christian principles. By nature this implies an organization partisan only to the promotion of peace. Compare with Jehovah's Witnesses, who refuse to involve themselves in politics or declare allegiance to any state, their own or others, and have often suffered and died for that; second is a not insignificant legal point. Inserting themselves in an armed conflict places them at risk, under the Laws of War, of aiding combatants, even if by passive means, Adhering to one side places them at a real risk of being legally (by international law) being arrested and imprisoned and even accused of espionage or subversion by the non-favored side. Ironic that this is essentially the claim made against them by their captors. -- Cecropia 00:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

With reference to your last point, the men and women who are killed by suicide bombers come from the same populations as the bombers. I don't think it's possible to distinguish them until the moment that explosives are detonated. Why do you believe that "human rights groups" support the latter and not the former? --Saforrest 21:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Argh, I'm really playing my leftist card today. Anyway, with reference to "deciding who is the underdog being partisan", well, in my books the underdog is the guy without fighter jets and nuclear weapons. The "moral underdog" is of course a trickier problem, and I certainly don't propose the solution is that simple. Unfortunately far, far too many leftists confuse the two. Ramsey Clark definitely comes to mind there. --Saforrest 21:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

3rd party view request which may interest you.

Hi, I notice that on your page you've stated:

Some of personal curiosities for the future of Wikis include:
 : will contentious articles even out in the end, or will they end up representing the POV of the most persistent?

I think this is what's happening on the MEMRI page coupled with personal attacks on myself and another editor. In my case, I won't BS you and say I'm blameless, but in Elizmr's case there is no justification for them. In my opinion, the project to attempt a NPOV article has broken down completely but I'd like an outside view. The current "fire" is an argument over the presentation and/or inclusion of allegations on a blog by the "victim" of one of MEMRI's translations. See the Controvery section, Accuracy subsection As with seemingly every other edit, any objections to it's presentation or inclusion are simply ignored by LeeHunter or dismissed with incivility which has led to a sterile edit war which needs to be resolved somehow. Frankly, I feel he is simply gate-keeping to protect the article as an unencylopedic attack piece which will likely succeed. The history of the article and the talk page clearly shows objecting editors being driven off because it's not worth the effort and they are probably right. But hey, I could be wrong, so if you don't mind, and can be bothered, could you please take a look and correct me if I am. Cheers Armon 13:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

International Criminal Court - an apology

I think I owe you an apology for one of the comments I posted on the ICC talk page. I put a comment talking about "your right wing propaganda" which you took to mean that I was describing your views as right wing propaganda. I meant "your" in the sense of your country, as I assumed that you are American, and I was talking about the right wing "propaganda" (in my POV) you hear from certain American commentators. I accept that this didn't come across well, and I apologise for this. AndrewRT 17:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Adminship

A belated thanks for promoting me. Keep up the great work! ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 08:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

A belated thanks from me too. Thanks, Cecropia. --Cyde Weys 20:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on Doug Bell's talk page

Cecropia; I wanted to say thank you for your comment on Doug Bell's talk page regarding my efforts to get a lid put on things. I know you to be far more reasoned and patient than what you had displayed in that debate, and I would easily grant the benefit of the doubt knowing that. Doug Bell doesn't have that history, and was upset. I tried to show that both sides had issues with this, and rightfully so, and that the issue was really separate from the AzaToth RfA. I recognize that I might have at times cast the impression that I was taking sides in this, but I can assure you I wasn't. I just didn't want to see a promising editor get slammed off the project because of perceived (by him) slights. He was intimidated by you, even if you weren't trying to be so. It's easy to do. He's a relatively new editor, and you're experienced with sysop and bureaucrat flags on your username. I was hoping that by showing he had no reason to be intimidated and that his position had some merit that we could perhaps reduce some of the heat rather than him feeling it necessary to very vociferously defend his position (which is a natural outcome of intimidation). I hope in the process of doing this I didn't burn any bridges with you. All the best, --Durin 21:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

for the grant of sysop rights, Cecropia. Kind regards —Encephalon 21:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Apology

I want to apologize for my "who needs them" comment that I made when I was not yet clear on exactly how the rules are applied. Please know that I do very much believe that you are trying to do the right thing. It was just that the tempers flew high on both sides and some of the comments and reactions did not inspire confidence. None-the-less, I do believe you are trying very much to do the right thing. --Mmounties (Talk) 04:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. These arguments often seem foolish once everyone has calmed down. :) -- Cecropia 04:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Why you owe me an apology

Please do not use my comment here as an occassion to restart the previous dispute. I want to narrowly focus this on where I perceive that you exercised poor judgement in comments you made regarding me and my actions and my basis for claiming that you owe me an apology. You are free to respond to these concerns but I will not be drawn into rehashing any ground that has already been covered.

First, I believe that you erred by responding to my actions not based on my individual actions, but rather by association with others expressing similar views. I base this conclusion on the following:

• In your comment on my talk page accusing me a vandalism, you tell me to "calm down"
• In your comment on the Bureaucrat page you say "Mr. Bell has been especially angered for some reason about the AzaToth nomination."
• You accuse me of being "aggressive in begging the question by jumping on Francs2000 for an obvious and innocent error "
• You said on my talk page "Francs admitted his mathematical error, yet you continued to harp on it".

The reality is that I made exactly two comments on the closing of the RfA prior to the entire incident with the Bureaucrats page:

1. edit summary: not so impossibly unlikely as has been suggested:

   I would point out, that at the current vote totals when closed, it would only take one oppose changing to support (which had already happened once on this RfA) and one additional support vote to cross that magic 75% threshold, or two opposes changing to neutral, or one oppose changing to neutral (which had also already happened on this RfA) and two additional support votes. I think, particularly given the entire discussion, that these scenarios are perhaps not so impossibly unlikely as has been suggested above. I'm just disappointed that this has been turned into a precise numbers vote and not one where common sense prevails. (I mean, even if just one additional oppose changed to support, that would be 74.3%...) I was under the impression from all of the contentious RfA's I've witnessed, that the closing bureaucrat was supposed to determine the validity of the votes, otherwise let's just write a 'bot to do it. Additionally, I see other discussions on this page (Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard) where close RfAs/RfBs are sometimes extended, instead of being cut short. I'm disappointed with how this was handled. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 01:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

2. edit summary: reply to NoSeptember:

   I think you are missing a very important aspect of CBDunkerson's comments. When you combine the fact that Francs2000 was wrong both on the time of closing and on the current ratio of the voting, and the fact that two oppose votes (10%) had already changed their vote—one to support and one to neutral—that there was a case and an opportunity for handling the RfA differently. It would not take "6 to 12 support votes" if one or more of the oppose votes was either discounted or the editor casting the oppose vote changed their vote. (The basis for including the "12" vote figure is lost on me, unless it is included simply to create an impression of WP:SNOW, as I don't see 77% in any of the discussions.) I think it somewhat disingenuous that the liklihood of this occuring keeps being characterized as insignificant.

   However, I find it more troubling that the extended discusion on the merits of the request for granting adminship for a narrow purpose (editing protected templates)—a purpose separate from the lack of edits in the main article space, which was the primary reason given for the majority of the oppose votes—seems to have been summarily ignored in considering this RfA. I don't find evidence in Francs2000's comments to suggest that this discussion was even read before closing, perhaps because of the erroneous assumption that consensus stood at only 62%. Again, I have to say that I'm disappointed by how this was handled and it suggests to me that perhaps the process for granting adminship needs to be reformed. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 09:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Following the above comments, I made a completely neutral change to the Bureaucrats page, with an inflamatory edit summary add formula for calculating percentage to help math-impaired b'crats get this part right.

Where is the anger? In what manner am I not being calm? Where is the aggressive behavior? Where is the harping on the math error?

Unless all of your comments are in reference to the edit summary (and the related edit by association only), I can only conclude that you erroneously took the totality of the comments on the Requests for adminship page as the basis for your remarks about my actions. I expressed disappointment, not anger. I mostly talked about scenarios that could have gotten the support:oppose ratio to 75% had the RfA not been closed prematurely, and about my understanding of the promotion process. In one of the two posts I mentioned the math errors in relation to how it might have impacted the result of the RfA—not as a rebuke of Francs, and certainly not "harping" on the error.

Second, having attributed motivations to my edit of the Bureaucrats page that aren't supported by my edit history, you then erred by proceeding to over react to my edit summary by accusing me of vandalism. First, unless there is some policy I'm not aware of, vandalism doesn't apply to edit summaries, it applies to the content. A rebuke for the language I used in the edit summary would have been appropriate, but accusing me of vandalism, with the express intent of laying the ground for blocking me, was not. The edit to the Bureaucrat page simply does not meet the definition of vandalism—not even close. You are certainly free to disagree with the edit, but that would not justify your aggressive behavior towards me in your role as an admin since that would be a disagreement between editors, not vandalism that had to be stopped by an admin. Your action was wrong and inappropriate.

Third, whereas my inappropriate edit summary was not personally directed at Francs, although I do not deny the implied association, you made a number of comments directed at me personally:

• Your edit summary when reverting my edit was: "When did Mr. Bell gain the competence to specify how promotions are performed?"
• Your comment on my talk page was: "You have not the experience here to dictate how policy is carried out and you are presumptuous to place rules on a policy page."
• You accused me, inappropiately, of vandalism.
• You accused my of being incivil, not assuming good faith and personal attacks.

Your claim that I was dictating how policy is carried out is unsupported by my changes to the page. Not one person has supported your view of this characterization of my edit and many have disagreed with it. You inappropriately chastise me for having the temerity to edit a policy page—this is counter to the policies of Wikipedia that go out of their way to say that anyone is allowed to edit any page. You made a personal attack specifically directed at me in your edit summary. You made an extreme assumption of bad faith in accusing me of vandalism. I accept your claim of incivility only on the basis of my edit summary, as that is the only time I was incivil. You have not, and I suggest cannot, point to where I assumed bad faith. The only possible claim for personal attack would be the same edit summary, although that is quite a stretch—I think the most that you could say would be to call it an impersonal attack. Anyway you want to frame it, you erred by being incivil, not assuming good faith and of personal attacks against me.

I have accepted responsibility for my inappropraite edit summary, and have apologized for it on several occassions. I have expressed regret to Francs for how circumstances have magnified his small errors. I have solicited feedback on my actions so that I can determine my culpability in the events.

What will you do?

—Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 07:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I will stand behind my actions, and refuse to engage your obsession any further. -- Cecropia 08:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

In all honesty...

One thing that I have always confirmed to myself on Wikipedia is that when things here get more stressful than they are at work, which starts to affect my paid employment, I can give this a break and concentrate on "real life". In all honesty if I don't have that luxury with a position I have been given on here, then I would much rather no longer have that position. Real life is much more important to me.

I will therefore contact a developer and request that my bureaucrat abilities be revoked, forthwith. Thank you for your support. -- Francs2000 12:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

My understanding

I didn't want to reply to this on Francs talk page, but you said in your comment there regarding his decision to step down as a bureaucrat:

except to the editors who didn't understand the process, which is what I went to great length and (at least in the eyes of one of the complainants) to no avail to point out

Just in case I was the one complaintant you singled out, I just wanted to say that if you read the other comment I left on Francs page about retracting my statement of misplaced faith, it should be clear that I have indeed understood your message about the process. Also, the sum total of my goings-on about the AzaToth RfA closing are actually much less than many others since I stop participating in the discussion shortly after the incident with the Bureaucrats page. My only continuing issue is entirely separate from the RfA and is noted above.

You may consider my concerns about your behavior towards me an "obsession", but please understand that this is an entirely separate issue from the questions regarding the RfA. I consider the RfA issue closed, and understand and have gone to some lengths to express my understanding that Francs errors where unintentional and minor, so please don't make the mistake of thinking that I am somehow still hanging on to that issue. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 20:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is time to let this fade into the Wikisunset. -- Cecropia 23:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Greetengs

I'm a young wikipedian, and I would like to say just that it is my pleasure to know that one man like you is a wikipedian member. Aeternus 15:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

You said the following on the bureaucrats' noticeboard:

I apologize for missing Turnstep's RfA. When I came around to it this evening, it was so late that I thought no one (including myself) had promoted because the time wasn't up. Then I looked at the calendar. Therefore, I grant Joturner the right to do twice the admin work for the next day to make up for it! :)

Did you misspeak in that last sentence? joturner 06:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Never mind; question answered. You probably meant Turnstep. joturner 06:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Some days are just full of fun

I imagine there are days that you wake up knowing it is going to be a day just full of fun. Then, you go to places like WT:RFA and Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats and promptly find yourself banging your head on the keyboard saying "Why in hell did I get up? Why oh why oh why?" :-))))) Thanks for all your efforts! --Durin 22:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you noticed that on Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats there is more chat from 2006 than from 2004 and 2005 combined? :-P Well, that could be a good thing. :-) NoSeptember ^talk 22:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is so distressing that I am seriously considering throwing myself to the gerbils. -- Cecropia 23:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Hello Cecropia,

I just saw your note to Angela. I think I can understand how stressful the job must be, and how too often it's too thankless. I for one think you've been doing a fantastic job, and I'm sure I'm far from alone. It's saddening that you've been put through so much, and no less that you've asked to move on, but you know best Cecropia, and one cannot doubt that it's the right call. To one who has made so many right calls: thank you. Regards —Encephalon 09:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Encephalon. Your kind words are really appreciated. The good opinion of my fellow Wikipedians has always been the most important thing to me, and the best reward. And now, as promised above, I shall throw myself to the gerbils. ;-) -- Cecropia 09:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've unwillingly carried out your request to be debureaucratted. I'm sorry the ongoing hassles at RfA led to your resignation. :( Angela. 09:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm hoping this is some kind of april fools prank :(. I only saw this through the recent changes at meta and am positively shocked... Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 10:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Nah. Don't do April Fool's. -- Cecropia 14:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I am disappointed. You have always done a very good job in a job where only the controversies get attention. If you wanted love, you should have done more name changes ;). I won't say more because I don't want to be argumentative. This will give you an idea of what I think, although it was not written for this specific situation. NoSeptember ^talk 14:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a very good page, NoSeptember. I guess some melodrama is inevitable, rather like watching the mourners (or celebrants) at your own funeral. But I already took a Wikibreak last September, and I thought the community deserved my simply bowing out so they can get the Bureaucracy in order (so to speak) the way they like it without me flitting in and out of the picture. Despite my natural propensity for verbiage, I really don't want to say much more because I hate massive Why This DemiGod is Leaving You declarations. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to pick up my briefcase. I'm having lunch with my colleague, Mr. Smith. -- Cecropia 14:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Admin powers not working

Hello. Considering that you were the one who closed my rfa, I'll assume you were the bureaucrat who promoted me. First, thank you. But second, I haven't noticed any of the abilities showing up. Interiot's tool still shows me as a user. But since the tool is subject to replication lag, that may explain that. I was wondering whether replication lag had anything to do with why, for all intensive purposes, I am still just a user. Can you look into this, please?--HereToHelp 12:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoah

A toast in congratulations of happier times to come

Uhhhhhh, so..... you're not a B'crat anymore? Because that would suck. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that would really suck. I'm sorry if what I said was uncivil - that wasn't the aim. I trust your judgement totally and even if I disagree with it occassionally, I also trust that you're doing everything in the best of faiths and for the good of Wikipedia and its community. I do hope you reconsider. Esperanzial regards, --Celestianpower ^háblame 14:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. This actually made me... sad. You did so much great work on RfA. But if it means that it'll reduce stress and keep you here in the larger sense, then good for you. Thanks for your hard work over the wikiages, and here's a toast to more! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

We haven't interacted much, so this may be a bit forward but I am sorry to see you decide to step down. This flap is not worth losing valuable 'crats over. I too hope you reconsider. That said, I would like to express my thanks to you for your services, and let you know that I respect your decision and wish you all the best in whatever you decide to do. Happy editing! ++Lar: t/c 15:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a dark day for Wikipedia. Dragons flight 17:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh crap! I knew you were under stress but I didn't know it was this bad. I'm very, very sad to see you resign your bureaucratship Cecropia. Very sad indeed. Over the last year, you've performed just over 50% of the promotions, with nearly four times as many promotions as the next most active bureaucrat (Nichalp). You've left behind HUGE shoes to fill. It's going to take multiple people to fill in where you left off, and I doubt any will be as good as you have been. --Durin 19:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to chime in and say, thanks for all the hard work you've put in as a b'crat over the last couple of years, and I hope that contributing to Wikipedia stays fun and satisfying for you! All the best, FreplySpang (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to say thanks for all the hard work and I'm sorry to see you leave b'cratship. On the other hand, if you have more fun as a post-bureaucrat than you did as a bureaucrat...then alls well that ends well. All the best. Guettarda 20:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

NOOO! At first I thought it was a sadistic April Fool's joke, but not it appears to be real. Thanks for all the time you've put in over the last few years and we're really sorry to see you go as a 'crat. Many cheers. — Ilyanep (Talk) 20:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you leave the post; your considered thoughts were an asset there. Enjoy your freedom from bureaucracy and take care. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oh God No! Yikes! Please Wikipedia needs you! Without intending disrespect to your b'crat peers, your loss absolutely decimates the high reputation of the b'crat corps. You were (and are) the Dean of the b'crats (irrespective of tenure length.) A world without your button-pushing is a sad, sad world. In praise, Xoloz 21:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Having just learned of your resignation I took the opportunity to read to my wife Heidi from your user page, and although we've not met you have touched us both. Warmest regards from hydnjo talk 00:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Please say this is an April Fool's joke from you. Please. Please? NSLE _(T+C) at 00:34 UTC (2006-04-02)

Celestianpower has said all that's in my mind about this. Can't really add to it other than repeat: Please reconsider. --Mmounties (Talk) 01:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no! Two respected Bureaucrats resigning in one week? We must be doing something wrong if we are creating so much stress for leading members of our community. I'm sure you know best, but this is another body-blow. :( -- ALoan (Talk) 10:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I don't know you that well, but I still feel compelled to add my own tip of the wiki-hat here, below those who knew you better. I do recall the day you promoted me to SysOp, and I recall that the edit summary gave me (and at least a few others) a good chuckle. It's the little humourous things that stand out. So from another member of the community, thanks for all your very hard work, and all the best in the future. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 05:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Awww...That sucked. :( Sorry to hear about your resignation. You've been doing a great job - I hope that you're still alright, yeah? - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 06:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This sucks, and I am shocked to see two great bureaucrats resigning in a week. You were a great bureaucrat but you are still a great admin and editor. Cheers --Terence Ong 08:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

My salute to you

Hello, Cecropia. I'm deeply sorry to hear that decided to no longer be a bureaucrat. You had my full respect, and always performed your duties with care, diligence, and great respect to the community. You were always there, throughout both good and rough times, responding to the community and handling your job exceptionally. You were not only a valued Wikipedian but a valued bureaucrat. Regardless, I'm glad to hear that you'll still be here on Wikipedia, working on this great project. Also, my greatest thanks for commenting on my request for bureaucratship; I appreciate your comments and feedback. Thank you once again! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Staten Island Railway

Hi Cecropia, I noticed your edits to LIRR related topics...I wonder if you have heard of a "South Pole" on Staten Island, which is located after you get off at the last station on the Staten Island Railway? Apparently, its just a hike away from the station along a beach of some sort. Do you know anything about it? --HappyCamper 23:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah! Tottenville was the key word I was looking for. Yes, the "South Pole" is an actual pole. It's colored like a candy cane. I've been there before on a hiking trip, but had forgotten what the place was called. Nevertheless, I was able to find it on the web after all with your note! [2]. Too bad it probably isn't "encyclopedic" enough to warrant an article...maybe if I find more information about it I'll add it to Wikipedia. --HappyCamper 15:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Just saw...

...that you'd resigned too. Thank you for your message on my talk page, if ever you need anything on Wikipedia don't hesitate to let me know (although not at the moment - I'm on wikibreak). I don't know about you but I have no plans whatsoever to ask for bureaucratship any time soon - I have better things to do with my time tbh. Perhaps we should start a wikicommunity of ex-bureaucrats complete with userboxes, categories and project page? (joking) -- Francs2000 14:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hammer to Fall edit

"Please be more careful of your edits. The article is about a particular song, not the rock group. The link you posted belongs on the Queen (band) article, if anywhere. You removed the link to Brian May's website. He is the song author. -- Cecropia 23:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)"

??? [3] -- Candyfloss 23:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC) -- P.S.: You mean there should be TWO different articles? One about the song and another one about the single?! Does this make any sense? Candyfloss 23:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

(a) I can't see any reason why http://www.brianmay.com should be included in the 'External links' section of a song article: it's a site about May/Queen, not about "Hammer to Fall". This is just my personal opinion - as you are the author of this article, of course you should decide on that. Anyway, I think it would be better to include this link in a 'References' section, whereas the dead link in the article should be removed.

(b) Please could you explain, why http://www.queenpicturehall.com/singles/q27htf.shtml is not "appropriate" and "belongs on the Queen (band) article" instead of the Hammer to Fall article. Best regards, Candyfloss 10:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels

Hi thank you for joining the WikiProject. There is still plenty of scope for influencing things and making your contribution count. We are about establishing standards for Novel based articles and writing articles that meet our own and others high standards, and to improve Wikipedia's diet of articles on Fiction books, otherwise called Novels. I see you don't have any userboxes on your userpage, we usually like participants to user ours {{User WikiProject Novels}}, however if you have a dislike could just add the Category:WikiProject Novels Participants if you would be so kind. If you have any questions, do ask. Please be very welcome. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Great Expectations

I see you have spent quite a bit of time trying to improve this article, for which I would like to thank you. However your treatment of the spoiler material, particularly sidelining this to a seperate article if highly individual, different from everything else I have experienced here on wikipedia so far. Therefore I have raised a discussion issue on the project about how we should proceed with this sytle of editing. Personally I think is is unnecessary and overly complex. However I will willing conseed this may not be more editor's view. What we do need is a consistent recommendation for the writing of articles, and standard with which to guide our approach to them. i.e. should this approach not be used (my view), should we do this for all articles, should we use this approach for only "major" novels. This could represent a significant shift in the way fiction is treated here on wikipedia. Do get envolved in the dabate and put your viewpoint. The discussion is on our General Forum and is linked to from our announcements banner at the top of the project page. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Inspiration behind user name

Nothing anywhere near as exciting as that I'm afraid. When I first created the name as an email address back in 1998 with yahoo, the year 2000 was a big deal and everything was being called 2000 for some reason, so that become part of my online persona. And the francs bit is a shortened version of one of my middle names. I find it endearing that everyone on here calls me Francs, when my name is actually Graham... (you can find my full name and title on my "about me" page). -- Francs2000 20:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Indebitably my dear Mr... er... Opia.  :-p -- Francs2000 20:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Missed out big time...

File:Johnwaynegacyclown.jpg

Gacy as "Pogo"

I think you missed out big time by not including, perhaps before the last couplet in your clown poem, a line with something like

And although it may seem racy

I'm not afraid of John Wayne Gacy

or something along those lines. Gacy would have been a good rhyming word (Macy's; play, see; tasty; baste me; etc.) Oh well, I'll give you an 89%. :-) See ya. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

RFC regarding editing dispute at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush

Your comments are invited at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merecat.

Merecat 20:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Coney Island

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/coney/peopleevents/pande06.html 75.3.4.54 04:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Coney Island

You've done a great job on the Coney Island article. 75.3.4.54 06:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy Spring celebration / Easter (as your preferences and beliefs dictate)

Here's hoping that if the bunny leaves you any beans they're this kind! ++Lar: t/c 15:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)

This was posted on your userpage (which, as always, I have great pleasure reading :) ). I have no further comment. Snoutwood (tóg) 21:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You are invited to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). All this is is ramblings/blog/rants about Bush. Not encyclopedic, should've been deleted long ago. Happy editing! Morton devonshire 20:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Your userpage

My great pleasure, me dear. Yours is a fine stop for a weary traveller in the realm of the User: namespace. Snoutwood (tóg) 23:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)

I see that just now, you edit and closed/protected AfD page. While I agree with your rebuke of Nescio, I wonder why it's fair that you get to keep editing there, whilee the rest of us are blocked. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination) and User Talk:Cyde. That AfD was closed improperly by an admin whose vote there stated he was prejudiced against it - and it was closed after only 24 hours. What can you do about that? Merecat 00:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it highly irregular that you are editing and commenting an archived protected page that non-admins cannot (and should not) edit. I would advise you remove your comments following the closure and move them to the talk page. --Mmx1 01:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Consensus to delete an article is approximately 2/3, and this article met that criterion. Protecting an archived AfD or RfA is what is highly irregular. I believe that Cyde both decided this wrongly and protected the page inappropriately. I have no intention of removing my appropriate comment. -- Cecropia 02:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not about the rightness of the protection/archive, but of writing to a purportedly archived page, which non-admins cannot edit. Since you feel the protection is wrong, the proper course is to push to reopen the discussion, not to continue editing just because you have the power to. But using your admin privs to edit a discussion that we cannot smacks of misuse of admin powers, even if that's not your intent. --Mmx1 03:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of content on AfD for Rationales to impeach George W. Bush

Hello, I see that in this edit you deleted content off of the AfD for Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. This included the deletion of two votes (including my own, which is why I noticed). Could you explain this please? Thanks. -- noosphere 05:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Responded on your talk. -- Cecropia 06:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Where? My talk page is blank. I archived it some days ago and there hasn't been a single new comment on it since. -- noosphere 06:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I found it. Looks like you clicked on my "green e" and then on the discussion link for that page, which is actually not my user talk page. I should fix that because I can see how it can lead to confusion. Anyway, now that I see your reply I understand your deletion on the AfD page was just an accident, which is what I suspected. Thanks, and sorry to bother you. -- noosphere 06:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

comment back

I am going to keep the lightly toned... tone it up yourself if you wish ;). The Jesus article is all based on personal unsourced interpation of verious sources (new testament; koran; etc.). This is exlcuding the other views section. The intro is totally unbanlanced with views so-to-say pro-Jesus. I could go on but that wouldn't be a good idea. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 06:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to take a mini-vacation from religious articles. Still, if I had my way, I would start with the historicity of Jesus, and I would make more of an effort to iron out the gospel descriptions, given that they don't all agree, and what little we know from Josephus and inference. -- Cecropia 06:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Feedback requested!

Hello! I hope you’re well. Some months ago, I solicited your feedback regarding a particular vote result regarding Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker. This is a request of your opinion of another.

Around a month ago, there was significant edit-warring at the Republic of Macedonia article, namely, there was contention regarding the appellation "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)" and the degree to which it should be emphasised in the intro of this overview article. As a result, the article was protected from editing ... a condition which persists to this day.

I initiated a poll, reviewed beforehand both by those involved and not with the debate (including one Admin), to determine the precise lead for the article. The poll began with two options (*) – the prior agreeable one and another – with options to add. An additional seven were added during the course of the poll. Upfront, victory conditions were indicated: through approval voting, a clear majority or plurality for a single option would prevail upon the vote’s conclusion.

As of 30 April (the poll’s end), no option has a garnered a majority (or by extension, consensus); however, one of the initial options has garnered a clear plurality; see below (in vote share order):

• 35 votes for option #2 – Extended version ... 23% *
• 24 votes for option #5 – Detailed version ... 16%
• 22 votes for option #4 – Brief version (2) ...14%
• 19 votes for option #1 – Brief version ... 13% *
• 15 votes for option #6 – Extended version: variation of #2 ... 10%
• 12 votes for option #7 – Extended version: another variation of #2 ... 8%
• 12 votes for option #9 – Brief version: variation of #4 ... 8%
• 8 votes for option #8 – Extended version (3) ... 5%
• 5 votes for option #3 – Extended version (2) ... 3%

Total: 152 votes

Some of the options added later differ little from the initial versions posted. Similarly, there has been minor dissent and few abstentions regarding the structure and results of the poll (e.g., supposed vote splitting, preference for multiple binary polls); the latter was discounted given the nuanced nature of the issue. However, the poll has garnered significant input, with most either explicitly supporting the poll or (by choosing whichever option(s)) implicitly doing so ... including most of those who expressed dissent.

So, the questions are:
(1) Given the above, do you believe that the vote result above is legit/decisive enough to solve the issue, and sufficient to remove the long-standing article block?
(2) Do you suggest additional courses of actions, if any, to help resolve this issue, e.g., subsequent run-off poll, different poll altogether, etc.?

I’d appreciate if you can peruse the actual poll and promptly provide feedback to me, soon after which (hopefully) we can retract the article block and continue legitimately editing the article. I want to proceed carefully and not necessarily be divisive but feel that the results of the vote should guide our collective actions. Please let me know if you’ve any questions; thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Great ... thank you! :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in at Republic of Macedonia; I appreciate it. Do you, or can you, have e-mail enabled? I'd like to connect with you on the QT, if possible. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Matrilineality

There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding my edit of a week or two ago to the "Matrilineality" article. (That was I, by the way - I had not contributed to Wikipedia for about a year, and, being out of practice, forgot to log in before editing.) I am not claiming that the halakhic rules on paternity are not post-Biblical. Rather, I am stating what the Mishna has to say on the subject of paternity, such as it defines it: for halakhah, the child of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother (or several other kinds of forbidden union) has no father, period. The relevance of this ruling *within the halakhic system* is obvious. (It also happens to be dealt with in some detail - if memory serves me well, the book by Prof. Shaye Cohen I quote elsewhere ("The Beginnings of Jewishness") makes a case for this to be one of the actual causes for the rabbinic ruling in favour of matrilineality. (There is an actual debate about the latter in the Gemara, though it is decided on competing biblical prooftexts. As for the ruling on paternity - consult your favorite halakhic source (printed or human). Its relevance is hardly something made up by Sh. Cohen; there is a mention of the matter in one of Dershovitz's books, of all places. Again, I am making a reference by memory.)

In most circumstances, halakhah does accord paternity (as opposed to merely maternity) to the children of a Jewish mother. Apparently, some women were trusted, after all; in particular, priesthood is passed patrilineally.

I don't really understand your deletion - perhaps the misunderstanding can be cleared? Obviously, I am not advocating one rule over another; I am simply trying to describe the history of certain rules, within the systems of rules in which they originated. Hasdrubal 06:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Hasdrubal 07:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The root of this problem is not your edit, but the difficulty in understanding who matrilineality is justified in a way that can possibly sensible to the average reader. Notwithstanding what you added, I have read the references by which the policy is justified and frankly, I can't find one that makes encyclopedic sense. Some sources say, in essence, that since intercourse between Jews and Gentiles is forbidden, that the result of this forbidden union is Jewish if the mother is the Jew but not if the father is a Jew. Does this make sense?

To an average human being in the 21st century, no. To a 3rd or 6th century rabbi, yes - and, since such rabbis set out the rules that are followed by the Orthodox (and those who see Orthodoxy as normative) nowadays, it is crucial for us to understand their mindset. Within the halakhic framework, the offspring of most kinds of forbidden relations has no paternity: this is not a fact about the world, or an opinion of mine about the world, but simply a fact about what halakhah states. We may go further into how this general rule evolved - the influence of Roman law is there, according to many - but we will have to be careful not to do original research (since doing so would violate Wikipedia policy). The general rule, in itself, is worth quoting - it allows one to put the rule in a general framework. Hasdrubal 08:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Other sources cite the "for he shall turn your children against Me" argument: "Me" being the Lord, and him sometimes interpreted as the non-Jewish father, or the non-Jewish spouse's father. That doesn't make sense either. One Jewish source, recognizing this, says that the "he" should be "she," the non-Jewish spouse. But the wording is "he." So my point isn't to argue one way or another either, but to exhibit how difficult this is to explain coherently.

I do not know of any mainstream historian nowadays who believes that descent in Biblical times was matrilineal. What you are bringing into the discussion here is simply a usage of Biblical prooftexts on the part of rabbis in order to justify a policy post facto. This usage does not tell an outside observer something about the Bible, but, rather, something about the rabbis' belief system and mode of argument. (For what it is worth - there is a discussion in the Gemara on this very issue, and both sides bolster their arguments by means of references to Biblical passages that would seem to have no bearing on the issue to our eyes.) Hasdrubal 08:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Now to your edit. Here is the paragraph with your edit in bold.

Orthodox Judaism states that, to be a Jew, one must be either a proselyte or the child of a Jewish mother. This ruling seems to be based on the fact that intercourse between Jews and non-Jews is forbidden, and any offspring resulting from such an act is considered to have no paternity. Matrilineality is not mentioned directly in the Bible, but derives from the Oral law (Mishnah tractate Kiddushin 3:12). The Talmudic commentary finds scriptural proof from various verses in the Torah and the rest of Tanakh (the Jewish Bible).

OK, your edit does not add to understanding, because it again asserts that sexual relations between Jews and non-Jews is forbidden, but the "no paternity" is yet another dance to defend a non-Biblical policy that noone seems really able to justify except by starting from the specific (mother is Jewish) and then tries to find justification in text.

I am defending nothing. I am simply relating a rabbinic ruling to a general rabbinic framework. It is not clear that the latter framework is somehow a justification for the ruling; while we should be careful not to wade into the waters of interpretation, it is held at least by some - here I must check my sources - that the framework led in reality to the ruling. The justification by Biblical texts is a different kettle of fish: it is fairly clear (to you and me - must find support in literature!) that it is post facto, and that it is attempting to find a Biblical basis for a policy which is post-Biblical. Mind you, as I said, it might be worthwhile to mention this justification in Wikipedia - just not in the auctorial voice. Hasdrubal 08:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think an honest assessement would find one of two (or both) reasons to be the root of the mateilineal descent issue:

• You know who the mother is, but you don't know who the father is, which is an unflattering assumption because it both says women cannot be trusted, and because it assigns a racial/genetic component to Judaism

Or, more to the point, some women are to be trusted and others aren't. Priestly descend is transmitted patrilineally, through intercourse with Jewish women. Hasdrubal 08:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

and/or

• The common sociological truth that the mother tends to determine the religious upbringing of the child. This is the position of the late Rabbi Schneerson, is common sense, but probably scriptural impossible to justify as a religious requirement.

Perhaps it would be possible to make your point in a way that would be more comprehensible to a non-religionist? -- Cecropia 07:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how this is a "common sociological truth". It may be mentioned in some apologetics, but I wonder whether anybody actually believes in it - it wouldn't make sense to have it justify a requirement, as you say. Hasdrubal 08:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

(interjecting - please respond to cecropia and not me) i believe the best way to deal with apparent contradictions is to incllude both points of view, attributed. Kevin Baas^talk 07:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: It would be great if you could get a copy of Shaye Cohen's The Beginnings of Jewishness, or some other historical work on the subject - that way (a) we would be on the same frequency, (b) we would be able to avoid making any statements that violate the no-original-research policy. Hasdrubal 08:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

PPS. I emphasize: in all of the above, I am not describing any sort of personal opinion on what should or should not be the case, or what policies should be followed. I am simply trying to describe the framework of other people in our century or other centuries, to the best of my ability. Hasdrubal 08:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand. Encyclopedically speaking, I am frustrated by the inability to have a sensible entry that would, perhaps, take account of the various views of the mixed parentage issue in a way that would allow the reader to draw sensible conclusions. As to the issue that the mother (not just Jewish mother) determines (or at least has the greatest influence over) the child's upbringing seems me to me to be something that any married (or unmarried for that matter) person with married friends or relatives is well aware of. Though that would be original research stated in that form, I think it could be easily backed up with citations.-- Cecropia 08:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I cannot but disagree with this last statement. The side with the greater influence depends too much from case to case and from place to place for any such general statement to make sense. (Also, for what it is worth, the entire Muslim world seems to have the opposite opinion from yours.) In any case, a (statistical) description is not a prescription.

Here is what we ought to have: (a) an account of what seems to be the consensus among academic historians as to which views came to be held by whom at what time and where; (b) how each group's views fit into its legal and philosophical framework. The main difficulty, it seems to me, is that some editors oppose (a) vehemently, either through a disconnect with what is now held to be true by historians (with abundant documentation) or through a direct disregard thereof. This is why I stopped editing these pages a while ago; I still plan to leave most of the editing to others. Ideally, we would have faculty from History and related disciplines editing these pages and dominating the discussion numerically. I doubt that will ever happen. Hasdrubal 08:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you do agree that the information given in the sentence you deleted should be included in some form, would you be so kind as to include it again - if possible in your own words (or those of a source)? I will stop paying attention to this page. As I implied, it does not make sense to keep the post-facto justification based on a very particular interpretation of a Bible verse, and to leave out what was probably a real factor in the framing of the halakhic system. Again, I am not making any statements about factual reality, except in so far as the rules of a legal system constitute a sort of factual reality (as are, say, the rules of chess as played nowadays, or the rules of chess as played in India in the 12th century). Hasdrubal 18:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

FYROM or Republic of Macedonia or Macedonia

There really is no personal or ethnic or whatever reason behind me rejecting your conclusion. In fact, I liked your spelled out option (as Avg did). I just think we cannot conclude on that based on the results of the poll. Nothing more - nothing less. Please reconsider after you count how many the contradicting votes are. See my example subpage for your first point (fYRoM and spellout in intro), where there are only 3 contradicting votes (out of ~89) and another ~70 double votes. We can't conclude that, so I suggest you remove it so that we verify the first point that was the reason why this poll started anyway. It will really help stop edit warring and create consensus!  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 17:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

DRV and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)

G'day Cecropia,

would DRV really tell you to "pull your head in"? Well, generic "you", yes, the awe-inspiring Cecropia, no :-). I skipped two-thirds of your point in order to make mine, which ended up making us both look silly. My apologies; it's not as if there's any rush, is there? Deary me.

Let's try again, with a bit of politeness in place of my earlier haste: AfD is not a poll, and the vote tally is irrelevant. I whinged because it's irritating when admins (let alone bureaucrats!) who aren't familiar with AfD (or who know it only as "that stinking cesspool") bring up the tally, and thus give this view (which tends to contribute to half-baked discussions and incivility) the imprimatuer of adminly authority. I hope I've explained it better this time 'round ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Brighton dates

Okay, I guess it makes sense to go with the opening dates for the current stations and not former incarnations of them ... but is there some place where the elevated openings are listed all in one place, or will it be necessary to go hunting for them? — Larry V (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem with that, I'll just have to recode the infobox template to allow omission of the opening month/day. — Larry V (talk) 02:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Who was the first admin?

I've been doing a little research, trying to figure out who the first person selected as a wikipedia administrator was. I found your name as the first bureaucrat to sysop someone in the current log (in December 2004), which seemed to indicate you've been around for a while. Do you know who was the first admin or no of someone who would? Cool3 19:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Cecropia is too much of a newbie ;-) to answer your question, but if you ever find someone who knows this stuff, send them over to the page I set up to record that sort of history. NoSeptember ^talk 19:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Btw, Cecropia, if you want to brag about your days as a bureaucrat, just refer people to this table. NoSeptember ^talk 20:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for improving...

Hot dog stand.

I was thinking it was never going to be improved. Good work. Knowitall 19:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Franklin Av Shuttle

Do you have any dates/places to find them for the opening/closing/reopening/final closing of Dean Street station? — Larry V (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

So basically the dates that are already in the article are more or less correct? — Larry V (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I trust your dates, I was just making sure. Thanks! — Larry V (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Favorite Songs

My survey has changed. I am now continuing my mission for the best songs, but now I am accepting all genres. I'm giving you a chance to revote for your top ten favorite songs of any genres (not just classic rock which is still the best). I've made a executive decision to keep the existing survey results and just add on to that with the new entries. My feeling for doing this is because classic rock is the most influential genre in music currently so it should be expressed more in the survey. Thank you for contributing in the past, and hopefully in the future. ROCK ON. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 03:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Brighton Line opening - Prospect Park to DeKalb Av

I don't particularly trust nycsubway.org anymore regarding this line, so do you happen to know the date for the opening of the northernmost segment of the Brighton Line, from Prospect Park to DeKalb? nycsubway.org says August 1, 1920 here, but the pages for the individual stations along that segment (DeKalb, Atlantic Ave, and 7th Ave) give dates that conflict with the first page and with each other. — Larry V (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Novels WikiProject Newsletter June 2006

Here is a new initiative for our project. You are recieving this as you have at some point signed up as a "member" of the project. Have a look at the newsletter via the link and see what you think. The June 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.hotdogchicagostyle.com/funfacts.php

I found this site that copies some of the information on the hot dog article (now on the regional variations article) upon which we both work. They cite one of our mirrors, answers.com, and I do not think that they mean any harm. The article, however, does seem to indicate that they have a copyright on the information. What actions should be taken? youngamerican (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. youngamerican (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

57th St/6th Av

It seems that around the NYCS project, it's come to be the convention to refer to 57th Street/Sixth Avenue as part of the IND 63rd Street Line. I'm really uncomfortable with this. I know that IND 63rd Street chaining starts at 57th, but so does Sixth Avenue chaining. The emergency exit there declares "6th Avenue Line - IND." Also, this station was open and served as a northern terminal for decades before the 63rd Street Line came into operation. Likewise, I don't like how the Sixth Avenue Line has been deemed to start south of 59th-Columbus Circle, where the current B/D tracks diverge. Seventh Avenue's emergency exit signage says "Queens Line - IND," and again Sixth Avenue chaining starts at 57th/6th and continues southward. I've moved the article to "57th Street (IND Sixth Avenue Line)," but I was just wondering what your opinion would be on this. — Larry V (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I was reading your stuff under the "War Crimes" article. I'm currently new to this Wiiki stuff and went to the List of War Crimes where I found the united states as being implicated for war crimes by wikkipedians. I tried editing, reasoning and (unfortunately)arguing. But all of my edits keep getting reverted as they seem hell bent on claiming allegations of The US in War Crimes are valid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_crimes

Could you help out here with some expert reasoning and show me how this wiki stuff is done?

Thanks -Ryan

42nd Street Shuttle

I'm sure you are aware of the chaos that has been circling the article about the 42nd Street Shuttle. However, I have now discovered that the problem is much deeper and convoluted that I had previously thought. At first, I thought that I could resolve it with a simple move request, and maybe a request for a history merge, but now I've decided to come to you and lay out the whole situation in one place, in the hopes that you as a sysop might be able to resolve this mess. This is the story, as best as I can figure it out.

The article started a while ago as "S 42nd Street Shuttle (New York City Subway service)". At some point, I renamed it to "S - 42nd Street Shuttle (New York City Subway service)" to clarify; this went smoothly, and caused no problems. At some point, Imdanumber1 renamed the article to "IRT Grand Central/Times Square Shuttle"; I easily reverted this move, and still there were no problems. Then, in an apparent show of stubbornness, Imdanumber1 renamed it again, to "S - Grand Central/Times Square Shuttle Shuttle (New York City Subway service)" (with duplicate "shuttle"), and then to "S - Grand Central/Times Square Shuttle (New York City Subway service)" (fixed duplicate). This seems to be where the problems started. Since then, the article "S - Grand Central/Times Square Shuttle (New York City Subway service)" has remained untouched; edits to the article shifted to the article "S - Grand Central/Times Square Shuttle Shuttle (New York City Subway service)]]. It is for this article that I placed the latest move request, which resulted in its being moved back to "S - 42nd Street Shuttle (New York City Subway service)". However, inexplicably, Imdanumber1 decided to be a vigilante again and oppose all popular opinion, moving it again, this time to "IRT Grand Central/Times Square Shuttle (New York City Subway service)", claiming "Moving page since this is much popular (since the shuttle serves these two stations only and trains say "transfe" (note the cut-off message). Here, Pacific Coast Highway moved it to "S-42nd Street Shuttle (New York City Subway service)" in an attempt to replicate the original name; he then somehow moved it again back to the original "S - 42nd Street Shuttle (New York City Subway service)". And there are more that I have not documented but have just found after writing the above "history". So now there are several separate edit histories (not counting edit histories only documenting a move operation):

Main histories:

• S - Grand Central/Times Square Shuttle (New York City Subway service): contains original edit history back to the original version
• S-42nd Street Shuttle (New York City Subway service)
• S - 42nd Street Shuttle (New York City Subway service)

Additional histories:

• 42nd Street Shuttle
• 42nd Street Shuttle Line

I've given up looking, for now. There are probable more double redirects floating around than I'd like to count, as well. I'm hoping that you can help straighten this mess out; I'm sure that if I had posted requests for this on WP:RM and such other pages, this would have never been resolved. This way, perhaps it can be fixed, or at least addressed, in something resembling promptness. Thanks in advance.

--Larry V (talk | contribs) 19:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a million! --Larry V (talk | contribs) 04:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Beverley/Cortelyou

How accurate is the statement that Beverley and Cortelyou are the closest stations in the system? A lot of the stations in Lower Manhattan look like they could challenge that. --192.193.221.142 17:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC) --Larry V (talk | contribs) 17:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

207th Street opening

Another nycsubway.org conflict … The article "The History of the Independent Subway" says (or at least implies) that 207th Street opened with the rest of the Eighth Avenue Line, down to Chambers/Hudson Terminal, but the station entry says that it opened a few months later. Which is true? --Larry V (talk | contribs) 02:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, okay, now I'm wondering why this says Feb 11, 1933. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 03:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Dean Street

Sorry....I was editing quickly. However, I haven't seen anything there that the infobox can't handle. Marc Shepherd 04:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Novels WikiProject Newsletter July 2006

Here is the new edition of our monthly newsletter. The July 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Jamaica Line north/south

Is railroad north on the Jamaica Line still towards Chambers Street, and south towards Parsons/Archer? --Larry V (talk | contribs) 02:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so then on Jamaica Line articles, "next north" should be the next towards Manhattan, and "next south" the next towards Jamaica Center… What about for Nassau Street, and for Chambers Street itself? --Larry V (talk | contribs) 12:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I posted on SubChat, and someone pointed me to the J schedule, which shows north as Jamaica Center and south as Broad. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 17:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Understood… I'm working on a table for New York City Subway chaining, listing the chaining codes, north/south, zero points, etc. based on this. I'll ask you to check it over when I'm done, in case some of the info is wrong or I made a typo or something. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 18:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

NYCS Chaining

To clarify: Although BMT M began at Sands St, was that its chaining zero point as well? Same for BMT N: was Myrtle/Hudson both north point and chaining zero? --Larry V (talk | contribs) 16:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that BMT N chaining zero was Park Row, but did N chaining actually begin there? (That is, was there N chaining across the Brooklyn Bridge, or did N start at Myrtle/Hudson at some non-zero number?)

I think I got it now; your explanation is much-appreciated. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 15:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

57th/7th

I've decided to concede the argument over 57th/7th, mainly because I respect your opinion more than that of HenryS. I also respect how you more or less made the same points as he did without inserting personal attacks. Thanks. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 19:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello admin. Could please have a look at Tajiks. This user is kind of vandalizing the article by removing and changing the text, removing pictures, and inserting suspicious pictures in. Thx Tājik 02:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Botanic Garden

Thanks for the headsup on the copy tag on the Botanic Garden image. Yes, I took it in the late 70s...roughly 1977 or 1978. Drgitlow 18:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Token Sucking

I can honestly say that that is the most disgusting thing I've heard in a while. Thanks for correcting me. It just seemed a little too ridiculous to be true. Did the token booth attendant do anything about it? Alphachimp ^talk 23:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Novels WikiProject Newsletter August 2006

Here is the new edition of our monthly newsletter. The August 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge discussion

There's a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Subway#14 St-Union Square that you may or may not want to check out. Just letting you know. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 15:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV (September 2006)

The September 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 12:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for NPOV'ing Streetcar (carsharing)...

...I was just about to get to it! Skybum 05:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

MORE Subway Changes

Hey Cecropia,

These subway vandals are back. A new IP user has vandalized the B and D articles. I believe they are the same ones that took part of the Sept. 9th Vandalism. This is starting to get dumb. Can you do something about them? --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 22:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Rvs

Look! Rev war --Xandi 23:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Good post

You made a good point making that suggestion to Marc Shepherd. We all need to take a break, and the best we can do is hope that he comes back. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 23:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 20:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

New subway table

I have created a new subway table that you probably would like to see. It can be seen at the WP:NYCS talk page, as well as my sandbox subpage. It is already getting attention from other users, and I thought you would like to see it too. Hope you like it. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 23:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

we should rename Palestinian political violence to Palestinian terrorism

I propose to rename the article title Palestinian political violence to Palestinian terrorism because the Palestinian terrorists are terrorists. They go around purposely killing innocent people to have their political goal which is eliminating Israel. The Palestinian terrorism is the right name for the article.

Image:Philadelphia-pcc-1965.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Philadelphia-pcc-1965.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. Peter O. (Talk) 12:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VI - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

seeking opinion on The Tale of Genji project

Hello Cecropia, I know that we have clashed in the past regarding Great Expectations, but I was seeking your opinion about a proposed project about The Tale of Genji. I know that you likely haven't read this, but anyway... I and another Wikipedia tossed about the idea of a WikiProject centered around this novel, in which each chapter would have its own page, and each character would have its own page, and it would all be linked together. I know that you favor in depth story summaries, and this idea would be along those same lines, except split across many pages, and linked to the parent article.

Keep in mind that this is something that I would not develop for a long time, because I would have to reread Genji and take notes. I should also say that I find myself somewhere in the middle between inclusionists and deletionists, so I am unsure whether a project like this would be more appropriate here or on Wikibooks. Thanks for your opinion. --Kyoko 18:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested in this

Jim, MONGO has nominated an RfA for me at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Doug Bell. I'm not here to solicit your participation, although I welcome it. I just wanted to let you know since you were mentioned specifically in one of the additional questions posed by Jasper toll (talk · contribs). (Oddly, that was the first and only edit by that user, so it is a likely sockpuppet, although there was no apparent agenda in the question itself.) —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 19:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

New Subway Service Information table consensus at WP:NYCS

There is a new subway service table being proposed at the WP:NYCS talk page. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Subway#Subway Service Information and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Subway#Hybrid Icons for discussion details, then see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Subway#Hybrid Icons for discussion details, then go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Subway#Subway Service Information table consensus to cast your vote. I really hope you vote support. Thanks! --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 01:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Metro Wiki

I've noted that you put in a lot of data on NYC subway lines. I wonder if you'd be interested in helping me.

Several months ago someone established a Metro Wiki, intended to be a Wiki about subways, and then did nothing about it. A couple of days ago, I discovered it, noticed that it's been totally inactive, and asked for (and got) authorization to take on the Wiki as my own. For now, it really just needs to get all the important articles copied from Wikipedia, and links to things that really don't have any business in a transit-oriented Wiki either removed or modified so they'll point to the article in Wikipedia. With time, the articles may be further edited so they will not be identical to the ones in Wikipedia, but that's not an immediate goal. Would you be interested in helping with this task? If so, you can reply to me or just begin copying articles.

I hope to see you on //metro.wikia.com -- BRG 21:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VII - December 2006

The December 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

request from User: Vaoverland

Hi! I have been busy working on Wikipedia: WikiProject Virginia and several other projects with User: No1lakersfan most of this past year, partially in preparation and supprt of the Jamestown 2007 event. He is now a high school senior hopping to gain admittance to one of Virginia's public university for the Fall 2007 semester. Following advice, he has done maintenance and reference adding work, as well spending time on articles. He is a good collaborator and I believe he would enhance our efforts with WP as an administrator and use the additional tools and powers wisely. Since you know me from our past communications, I wanted to request that you consider entering a vote, hopefully in support, if you agree with my judgment and recommendation at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/No1lakersfan 2.

• Please feel free to communicate with me on my Talk page at User talk: Vaoverland if you have any questions or reservations. Best wishes for a safe and happy holiday season. Thanks, Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 23:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VII - December 2006

The January 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Amy Winfrey

You started this article, which was proposed for speedy deletion under CSD A7 (non notable). As you're an established editor, I've changed it to Prod to give time to improve the article, if possible, as it doesn't assert any particular notability at the moment. Tyrenius 11:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Brooklyn trolleys

I noticed from tagging NYC Subway talk pages that you seem to know a lot about its history. I was wondering if you might also have knowledge of the Brooklyn trolleys? I have been writing a number of articles on them (see List of streetcar lines in Brooklyn), and I am particularly looking for details of the numbering system that was originally used on maps and later on PCCs. --NE2 10:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The detailed information on the talk page is from Joe's BAHN layout, and I feel it's too detailed for the main list (but it can be incorporated into the individual articles). I've hit a gold mine with the Brooklyn Daily Eagle being online up to 1902... see Hudson Avenue Line and St. Johns Place Line for examples of what I've been able to do. As for trackage rights, those were basically forced by the franchises - if the companies couldn't come to an agreement, it was treated like eminent domain, and the courts assigned damages to be paid.

I've also found some interesting short-lived rural lines. You probably know about the Kings County Central Railroad (no article yet), but are you aware that its path along the old Clove Road was also used at various times by the Holy Cross Cemetery Line (haven't been able to find full details yet) and the Brooklyn and Canarsie Railroad? There was also a line on this map, starting out from Coney Island like the Culver Line, but turning off onto Kings Highway to Flatlands and then heading up Flatbush Avenue; I haven't found out what it was (or if it actually existed) yet. (That map shows the Brooklyn and Canarsie, by the way.) --NE2 06:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I figured out what that line was - it was a never-completed Brooklyn, Flatbush and Coney Island Railroad (later reincorporated and built as the Brighton Beach Line). In 1878, this company tried to get an injunction against the Culver Line to keep it from tearing up the roadbed and building a new one on Gravesend Avenue. Here are a few pieces of the 1878 article that make this clear: [4][5] Most of the earlier matches for the company are foreclosure notices, but here's an act describing it: [6][7][8] --NE2 07:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you're right about that. I had noticed the railroad/railway difference but had assumed incorrectly that one was a reorganization of the other. --NE2 07:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Annoyingly, I've noticed a lot of errors of that sort in the Eagle, from the bizarre ("Long Long Island Railroad") to truncated common names ("Coney Island Railroad" for Coney Island and Brooklyn Railroad) to railroad/railway confusion. But in general it's very good for openings, leases, and most other matters. --NE2 08:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Novels newsletter : Issue IX - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 16:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

Tree or moth?

As per User:Radiant!/Classification of admins, we need to know urgently whether you are a Cecropia tree or a Cecropia moth. Guettarda 18:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

email address?

I notice you don't have an active email address (email this user doesn't work). If you're still around, please give me a buzz (your talk, my talk, or email, I don't care). -- Rick Block (talk) 05:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still around, though haphazardly. Feel free to post whatever here. Cheers! -- Cecropia 22:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Brooklyn trolleys again

Apologies for bothering you again... do you know anything about the Culver, Sea Beach, and West End elevated operations between 1907 and 1920? There's currently a gap in the history on Rapid transit operations of the BRT and BMT. According to the text I copied onto Talk:Rapid transit operations of the BRT and BMT, the West End elevated trains were operated by the Nassau Electric south of 36th Street, while by then the Sea Beach had been merged into the NYCR, and the NYCR operated via trackage rights over the Nassau Electric (West End) between Bath Junction and 36th Street. I'm less sure about the Culver, and the Sea Beach between 1907 and 1912; do you know if the Culver operation was similarly split between the Brooklyn Union Elevated Railroad/NYCR and South Brooklyn Railway (and whether the South Brooklyn operated trolleys too for their portion of the routes), and the same with the Sea Beach (did the Sea Beach operate the elevated cars up to 36th Street?). Thank you for any assistance. --NE2 00:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I've found; see the 1908 McGraw Electric Railway Manual. Page 206 shows that the Brooklyn Heights lease of the Nassau Electric was canceled on June 30, 1904, "coincident with a decision of the courts compelling the issuance of transfers from one leased line to another, and the road is now operated separately." The New York Times backs this up. As of March 1, 1907, the elevated leases (Brooklyn Union Elevated Railroad, Sea Beach Railway, South Brooklyn Railway, Canarsie Railroad) to the Brooklyn Heights were canceled (page 204). The Canarsie was leased to the Brooklyn Union Elevated, but the Sea Beach and South Brooklyn operated independently (pages 208 and 209). Ca. 1913, when the Sea Beach was being rebuilt, the Nassau Electric was still operated independently; see the text on Talk:Rapid transit operations of the BRT and BMT. --NE2 23:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

So what changed between the pre-1904 operations of the West End elevated trains by the Brooklyn Heights and the post-1904 operations where the Nassau Electric technically operated them south of 36th Street? --NE2 23:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm thinking more about the internal workings; sorry if you don't know about them. When the Public Service Commission says that the West End trains were operated by the Nassau Electric south of 36th Street, what does that mean, and how was it different from the Sea Beach operations via trackage rights? --NE2 20:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

So does that mean that the workers on those trains were technically employed by both companies? --NE2 21:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Tram and light rail

Hey, Cecropia, you might want to have a look at Tram again. A user has decided that it is synonymous with Light rail vehicle and could not be persuaded that, while there may be some overlap between the terms, there is also a difference, and rejected phrasing that explained this, constantly relisting it as a synonym. Perhaps you can find a solution. Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by Grafikbot 11:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - May 2007

The May 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 16:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Your RfB

Was there a Wikipedia-related reason for your requesting to have Bureaucrat removed on April 1? - jc37 17:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

See my answer at the RfB. Thanks for asking! -- Cecropia 17:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome : )

My main reason for asking was since you (presumably) left for uncontroversial reasons, you can likely just ask someone at WP:BN to reinstate you. (I don't know if you knew that already.) In any case, hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 17:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm delighted to see you're volunteering again. This also gives me an opportunity to say something it's always bothered me I never said, which was to thank you for this. So (better late than never), thanks . Chick Bowen 18:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely my pleasure. Thanks! Cecropia 19:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Good to see you back again! =D - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 01:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've added another question to your RfB. Thanks, --Durin 21:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Further thoughts regarding consensus and your RfB

Cecropia, I'd like to expand further on my objection to you being a bureaucrat at this time, in abstract and on a more personal level.

First, I sincerely hope that you do not take my comments as *any* sort of personal affront to you. They are not intended as such and should in no way be interpreted as such. I have considerable respect for you and your contributions to this project, and have zero doubts about your dedication and willingness to see the best thing done for the project.

My objection lies primarily with abstract objections I have had with the RfA process as a whole. I've been debating this quite vociferously at WT:RFA and other locations over the last few months. Indeed, I embarked on a strategy back in January regarding RfA reform. I've spoken at length about this elsewhere, and I'd be happy to point you to those statements by me.

In sum, the process must change because it is actively damaging the project. Backlogs are at record levels. Promotion rates continue to decline. Standards keep going up, and up, and up, and up. I strongly encourage you to read "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy". Consider it within the context of RfA, and this essay will be shocking to you.

RfA reform has been discussed for as long as RfA has been around. A run through the talk page archives shows this. But, the crescendo regarding reform over the last year has been immense. RfA simply isn't the place you left behind a year ago. It's a very different beast now. What were small problems that could be ignored out of hand have now become large enough to be impeachments of the process. I have, at least on WT:RFA, been the most vocal proponent for reform in the last couple of months. But, I am very far from alone. I've discussed this with Jimbo, some of the members of the foundation, and other noted individuals (such as David Gerard, etc) and there's widespread agreement that the process is badly broken.

From my own chair, the most fundamental problem is that RfA has become a strict vote. This has been an insidious process that started years ago, quite literally, but has become massively problematic now. Users are now actively arguing that all opinions, regardless of merit or veracity, must be counted as a vote. David Gerard refers to this as the "one moron, one vote" philosophy. This has created a heavy, undue weight situation with regards to all sorts of petty objections to candidates that fosters ever increasing standards.

The best tool against this? Consensus evaluation. Consensus isn't judging numbers, it isn't making significantly subjective assessments of positions. It's evaluating what the community feels regarding a particular candidate. It's not what the community says consensus is per se. Consensus is not a *level*, it's an *concept*. It's not particularly flexible in the sense that the concept is something that suffers redefinition readily.

To be honest, I feel very few people at RfA have an understanding of what consensus is. The term has been badly abused over the years at RfA, and its become synonymous with a percentage of the people contributing to a given RfA. Take a look at the RfBs of all current active bureaucrats. Look at the answers to question 1. To a person, it's almost universally treated as a form of voting. Consensus is not a vote. Within a consensus building meeting you can take quick polls on the stance regarding a particular opinion, but in the final evaluation consensus is never quantifiable as a percentage, or a vote. Few people understand this. I grant it's a concept that is not as easy to get one's brain around; it's a lot more complex than "75-80%". I believe it is exceptionally important for a bureaucrat to be able to evaluate consensus on an RfA. This has nothing to do with support votes, oppose votes, neutral votes, etc. Within the concept of consensus, all commentary has weight initially. I absolutely insist that any candidates for bureaucrat understand these concepts and be willing to exercise them.

In posing questions to you, I was attempting to evaluate your positions with respect to the concept of consensus. I found your answers lacking. I came to your RfB predisposed to opposing because of your track record of being a strict vote counter. Yes, I'd looked at your record. I record who closes RfBs and went through 98 closes of yours. A number of people hold the opinion that it was you that instituted the 75-80% rule for RfAs. Your first RfB supports this. The conclusion is wrong however. I've done the research on this and know that there was discussion and even polling regarding this before your first RfB. You've been wrongfully accused of this. However, I do know from your track record that you really were one of the strictest vote counters we have ever seen. This was greatly troubling to me, as I feel this is the chief problem facing RfA.

I withheld further commentary from your new RfB until you responded to the questions. I was frankly disappointed at what I felt was an evasive response to the first two questions I posed. I cast some guilt on myself for not asking more direct questions, and thus posed an additional question asking for more detail. I was disappointed with that answer. I was hoping, perhaps too much so, that I'd see something that strongly convinced me that your position regarding these issues had changed and that you had a full understanding of what consensus really means. Your answer did little to convince me of this.

My opposition based on inexperience isn't a negative comment on you, just your level of activity on WT:RFA in the last year. There's been massive upheavals during that time. There's been heavily contentious promotions, reform attempts, disputes in other bureaucrat areas, and all manner of serious problems. RfA is very, very different from what it was a year ago. Just as a point of comparison; the activity level at WT:RFA for April 2007 was twice that of April 2006, your last month of contribution there (2,189 comments v.s 1,120). The situation has changed very, very significantly. I don't believe it was appropriate for you to toss your hat into the ring without rejoining the community and contributing for a while to assess the current status and whether your current skills are a good match for what is expected.

My opposition from the third point is combined with the first; if we promote you, and if (as I expect) RfA becomes even more strictly a vote, the ability to put a bureaucrat in place who is willing to judge consensus and not voting is going to be severely hampered. You were by far the most active bureaucrat when you left. The old argument about the lack of need for more bureaucrats (which is preposterous in my opinion) is going to have new life breathed into it and we are not going to see new bureaucrats who are willing to judge consensus. That's something I'm not willing to accept when juxtaposed with my opposition based on the first point.

I expect your RfB to pass swimmingly. Nevertheless, it was important for me to state my opposition and why. Perhaps it is even more important for me to have left this note on your talk page. You're going to become a bureaucrat again. I beg of you to evaluate RfAs towards consensus, and not towards a vote. --Durin 16:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Durin, I hear your objections and will reread them to better absorb them. I think you misunderstand something about me at Wikipedia. I try to say what I mean and mean what I say. I believe that what you feel is evasion on my part is my attempt to be open about a process that I have not been intimate with for a year. When and if I resume my b'crat flag I will study thoroughly all the debate and the state of the process to understand where we are. I would be grateful if you can help me to understand this. I was a vote-counter because I felt that was where the community was at the time. What surprises me is that you seem to feel I am all about an agenda when I have tried to be all about the community. I came to the bureaucracy very soon after it was formed. I felt I left RfA in better shape than I found it. Multiple editors, including you, seem to feel that RfA is now in worse shape than I left it. It is a difficult logical leap for understand that you think I would impact RfA negatively if I return. -- Cecropia 16:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Your RfB

I just want to say that my vote on your RfB was nothing personal. You totally deserve bureaucratship, it's solely a matter of my views on RfA (which I admit are quite radical). And I appreciate the confusing position that Durin and I have inadvertently put you in; in fact, I was in a very similar position on my RfA concerning interpretations of the CSD criteria. The fact is that Durin and I represent the polar opposite ends of the opinion spectrum on this issue. I think that RfA should be a simple vote, and that bureaucrats should simply count the votes and promote accordingly; his view is equally extreme in the other direction. So don't be concerned, as everyone in between will probably support you due to your moderate views on RfA. (While my extreme views will probably prevent me ever becoming a 'crat.) Walton ^{Need some help?} 18:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that you've responded to everyone else, but you're ignoring me? Did I unintentionally offend you? If so, I apologise. Walton ^{Need some help?} 17:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to your posting here? Then I apologize. I thought you were expressing your sentiments, which are well stated and much appreciated, and weren't seeking a particular response. I will comment that I don't necessarily disagree with you on the point of counting--it is the most straightforward means of achieving consistency, but the issue of using voting as the primary means of determining consensus has been debated more or less continually since the establish of the bureaucrat system four years ago. Once the current RfB is concluded, I will look into the current state of the debate. -- Cecropia 17:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I feel quite guilty about opposing you, because it's not your fault that the system itself is bad. As a side point, I suppose the problem I have with the system could be best exemplified by the contrast between Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KyraVixen. In the former, the bureaucrats decided to promote Danny with only 66% support; in the latter, Kyra had more than 66% support but was not promoted. IMHO, leaving decisions to the caprice of office-holders rather than community consensus is a very dangerous road... but like I said, that's not your fault. Walton ^{Need some help?} 17:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your view. The "Danny" situation may be the most obvious example of "bureaucrat discretion" trumping votes and sentiments. I am going to review the argumentation on that one since I didn't participate to see how it was reasoned out. When and if my bureaucrat bit is restored, I am going to start to review the chaos that many feel RfA is and see where the common ground lies on "consensus." I hope RfA doesn't become Florida 2000. ;-) -- Cecropia 23:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've actually changed to support on your RfB. This is because I strongly disagree with everything most of the opposers have said. And it seems you have a reasonable respect for community consensus, more so than most of the existing bureaucrats. Walton ^{Need some help?} 15:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Walton. I really appreciate that you took the time and displayed the open-mindedness to see where I am coming from and to change your vote in affirmation. I understand your concerns and believe that our divergent perspectives will nevertheless improve the climate at RfA and the handling of nominations in a better fashion. Cheers, Cecropia 17:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

More on your RfB

Hi Cecropia. I just wanted to cheer you up a bit, given the bugging and accusations you're having to deal with at your RfB. I'm sure you'll handle that just fine, I believe you've seen worse. Keep it up, and you'll be an awesome bureacrat once you get promoted (sadly, after you left, the quality of work in promotions went down I'd say). Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm very glad to hear the moth wants to be a butterfly again. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please consider enabling your email

I had wanted to contact you off-wiki to clear up some misconceptions that at least one of us have... ++Lar: t/c 19:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought my email *was* enabled. It is jcecropia@mail.com -- Cecropia 20:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Question on your RFB

Hi Cecropia :) I left another question on your RFB. Take care, FloNight 19:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that you enabled your email and it is working now. :) I sent a test one through.

Regarding my comments on the RFB. I believe that some users are purposely not commenting in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections because they feel that RFA is too much like a vote and not a consensus discussion. I think that the comments by these users are intended by them to hold the same weight as other users. This is different than the old comment section of RFA's where people commenting only wanted to provide information not an opinion. At least that is my take on the situation. Take care, FloNight 21:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Looks like I'm the first one to say well done on becoming the latest Bureaucrat here on the English Wikipedia. I trust that a passing steward will come along sooner or later and set your flag to 'crat status so that you can get on and tackle the backlog. Good to have you on board - see you around, (aeropagitica) 21:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I was still processing.. Secretlondon

There actually isn't much of a backlog. Renames build up if I don't do them - but RfAs get done pretty quickly.. Secretlondon 23:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

and it's done by bureaucrats not by stewards. We make crats as well as admins. Secretlondon 23:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on becoming aadministrator 'crat!!! It's certainly well deserved and I hope you enjoy pushing the buttom for a few more of our furture administrators! Ryan Postlethwaite 23:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You've broken the system, but I figured it was bound to happen anyway. Congrats, Cecropia. =) Nishkid64 (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Aeropagitica, that is something any local bureaucrat can do. Cecropia, I guess we can now have more debates about RFB being broken... congratulations. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations you are now a bureaucrat! (again) Secretlondon 23:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Congrats and excuse me for not being able to support. Quite busy. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I applaud your re-survival of the whole encounter. Hopefully it wasn't too traumatic for you. :) bibliomaniac15 05:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, compared to being drafted during the Vietnam War, it wasn't too bad. ;-) -- Cecropia 05:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Congrats and request

Congratualtions on becoming a crat again. As someone who helps out on the rename pages, I was hoping you might be able to lend a hand at Wikipedia:Changing username and Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. Secretlondon is doing a great job but has been pretty much managing single handedly of late and has had to perform the last 300 renames. I'm sure she'd be grateful for some help. The templates being used at the moment make it pretty quick - one click for renames and two for usurpations. Hope to see you there... WjBscribe 23:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations, and yes, I think you'll make it. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RfB. I apologise for changing my mind so many times, but on reflection I'm glad I supported you. Walton ^{Need some help?} 09:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Slightly belated congratulations on your re-elevation.--Anthony.bradbury 23:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Khukri

I've closed the voting but you can do the rest ;) Secretlondon 23:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your first (recent!) makesysop! You should be honored it was one of my candidates! Let's hope there's plenty more to come..... Ryan Postlethwaite 00:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cecropia, just a polite request: please don't reference the tally in the edit summary when closing an RfA, as we know it's not a poll or a vote, so is rather meaningless :) And congratulations on passing your own RfB (again) Majorly (talk | meet) 01:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm back

I'm back. Don't know if you got my email or not, but I'm a former wiki-admin who's decided to come back.... well, I'm a wikiholic, heh! --RubyKLM 19:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I did get your email (just now). Please sign into your former account and leave me a note here, so I can be sure you're the same user. Welcome Back! -- Cecropia 20:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the Welcome

Yee-haw, cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war! --or I'll just grab the mop and bucket and join the distinguished group of administrators that have preceded me. Thanks again for the welcome. --Bobak 23:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please review your copyright opinion re: On the Jews and Their Lies

Dear Cecropia:

User SlimVirgin has reinstated the link to On the Jews and Their Lies, a work that in your opinion at Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews/Archive 2#Copyright and On the Jews and Their Lies - An Outside Opinion is infringing and should not be linked to. Would you kindly review the matter and add your comments to the talk page at Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies#Linking to full text of American Edition Version of Text A summary that covers most of my analysis is at: Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies/Archive1#Copyright and On the Jews and Their Lies. Thank you! --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to express my concern about linking to this website without any criticism of any editor. The website is deceptive in making the claim that this material is in the public domain. It is not, and linking to it is not in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines.--Drboisclair 03:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

How is it not in the public domain? --Iamunknown 04:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The book in question was copyright 1971. The new federal law automatically extends the copyright past the original 28 years. 1999 would have been the renewal year. CTSWyneken has more information on this.--Drboisclair 05:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

How do I go about getting this issue reviewed by the copyright folk at Wikipedia. At least one user is intent on preventing me from removing this link. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 16:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• The general forum for copyright questions is Wikipedia talk:Copyrights, though it is admittedly less-trafficked. One of the smartest individual coypright folk I know on en.WP is User:Lupo. You may try asking him.
• I personally tried to figure out the copyright status of the book; some volumes of the Luther's Works book were listed in both the Rutgers or the Stanford renewals databases, but not volume 47, from which "On the Jews and Their Lies" comes from. I do not know what to recommend. Perhaps an older translation could be used, which would more likely be out of copyright. --Iamunknown 17:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no other English translation of the entire document.--Drboisclair 19:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason it is difficult to find renewals for a lot of the volumes is that the U.S. Congress renewed their terms automatically. See The U.S. Copyright Office's Circular 22,third bullet under "Some words of Caution" describes the status of the work. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, works after 1964 (IIRC) do not require explicit renewal. I am aware of this partly because I own some copyrights and other intellectual property. -- Cecropia 19:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

http://reactor-core.org/jewish-lies.html indicates that Luther's Works, the anthology that "On Jews and their Lies" was taken from, was published in 1955; thus it would have required explicit renewal. --Iamunknown 20:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Iamunknown, that is mistaken information that was garnered from the Fordham website. The copyright date is 1971.--Drboisclair 20:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

See http://www.worldcatlibraries.org/oclc/4449847, I don't think that it is entirely incorrect information. --Iamunknown 21:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)No it isn't but 1955 is the inception of the project, and the other is the date they got to by the publishing of the volumes listed there. The volume in question was copyright and published 1971. I see your point that there is credibility in the 1955 date, but only as the beginning date of the series.--Drboisclair 22:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) As a librarian, it warms my heart to see folks using WorldCat! The record you've referenced is one for a library that cataloged the set as a whole. Here's another set level record for the same thing. Notice it has a range that goes to 1986. The volumes appeared as they were completed. Volume 47 was published in 1971. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point. To confirm the publishing date (for myself), I shall go to the nearest University library (there is one only about 10 miles from my residence), but I expect that you all are right and that the external link should be removed. --Iamunknown 00:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Tireless contributor barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I award Cecropia this barnstar for his painstaking research and work. Your grateful collegues applaud you. Drboisclair 20:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops

My apologies, I think I crossed edits with you trying to add {{rfat}} to Gracenotes' RFA; I have reverted myself already. -- nae'blis 20:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrat Comment on Gracenotes RfA procedure

I would be grateful if the Bureaucrats I contacted (those currently active at RfA, except SecretLondon, who is on WikiLeave) would give me their comments under this heading. Thanks, Cecropia 21:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If Gracenotes agrees, this sounds fair. I do not share your objections to the 'bureaucrat chat' procedure as used with Danny's RFA, but I am interested in seeing how your suggested approach might work. — Dan | talk 00:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dan. We should put your proposal to Gracenotes and see if they agree; if they do, I'm perfectly happy to see it implemented. Past experiences of restarting RfAs have not generally been positive, but perhaps with new input on the main issue raised it could produce a clear consensus, one way or the other. I think that your objection to "bureaucrat chat" is highly relevant, and highlights the dangers which could arise, were we to use it in the manner you describe. However, I'm not sure that is what happened with Danny, and the actual experience of the bureaucrat chat seemed a qualified success in making transparent the reasoning behind the decision that a consensus was present. Warofdreams talk 17:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe we should try this as well, provided the candidate accepts to have his RfA restarted following a period for discussions. The community has expressed, in the past, disapproval of the idea of restarting RfAs "just" because consensus was not perfectly clear for the Bcrat to read, but Gracenote's RfA is an extreme case, and we do need to perfect tools that will help not only the Bcrats, but also the community in general to deal with those, since we've been having one every two or three months. In that spirit, we should not pass the opportunity to put to test a proposal of a method to deal with those highly controversial, troubled RfAs.
As for the "Bcrat chat", I believe we avoid the danger Cecropia outlined as long as we do not discuss the issue itself, but rather how it was approached by the participants in any given RfA — and that would include an analysis of whether or not any given issue was kept in due perspective by the participants (as in the case of assessing if personal dislikes might have led to a disproportionate presentation of any given issue). It must be highlighted, of course, that such proceeding would only be considered in extreme cases, such as it was Danny's RfA. Redux 12:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The Danny b'crat chat was not much of a success in analyzing what the participants were thinking. When one 'crat can say "I don't think even Danny's worst critic would allege he is not trustworthy" and another can answer "Good point that no one is alleging he's untrustworthy" it doesn't seem like they're reading the opposition (a lot of which dealt with trust) very carefully. Nor does it seem to me that a bureaucrat is determining whether there is a consensus to promote when he can write "the community has no clear opinion on this issue" and yet come out strongly in favor of a promotion. In fact, so strongly that he a) left a 'support' comment in the RFA, b) argued at length for a promotion in the b'crat chat and c) went ahead and pushed the button to promote, even when some of the crats were still on the fence. Haukur 16:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not correct that we're not reading the comments. I read every word in the nomination. After that I went through several levels of analysis to come to my conclusion. What's not possible for anyone without a photographic memoery is to read that many thousands of words, analyze the overall consensus, and never make a single mistake in recalling what's written. It's unreasonable to expect perfect recall, and using a mistake to assert as if the bcrat discussion doesn't work on the whole is not helpful. Nor can I understand how your continued, repeated negative comments are. - Taxman ^Talk 19:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Despite "several levels of analysis" you somehow missed that multiple participants did not trust the candidate, a rather important issue. Criticizing this is not expecting photographic memory, it's expecting you to do your job in a reasonably competent manner. Nor is this the only mistake I'm pointing out. As to whether criticizing you is 'helpful' I can understand that it may not feel like that from where you are sitting but I think criticism of those who hold power (petty as that power may be) is generally a useful thing. You should also remember that I've complimented you where I feel you've done a good job. In this case, for example, I think you did very well in initiating the discussion in a publicly readable forum. I also think you've done well in admitting you made a mistake (though you don't think it was an important one). I also appreciate you for replying to me and engaging with my criticism, which is more than I have got from the others. Haukur 19:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright infringed page again linked to

Please take note that an editor has again violated WP:COPYRIGHT by linking to the Fordham University website. Please see: [9].--Drboisclair 00:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Gracenotes RfA stats

Hi Cecropia!

I'm but a simple user, but I have gotten some stats that might interest you if it comes down to consensus/voting discussions:

For support votes, I'd say 10 were very strong points and agruments out of 201. (about 2%). I judged 40 to be vote-like (myself included :()) "per above", (20%), while the rest had a descriptive quality why he should be a sysop, but not much after that (151, 78%).

For the opposers, 10 where very strong points out of 71 (14%), while 50 where per above votes (70%), amd the rest (11, 16%) where it where weaker/one sentence comments.

I excluded the neutrals (4 out of 272 votes, less than 1%), as they were unsure whether to agree with either opposing or supporting arguments.)

Cheers! Evilclown93 01:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Seeing the Bureaucrat Discussion

I take it this subpage hasn't been created yet? G1ggy! _{Review me!} 07:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It has not. The bureaucrats haven't decided for certain yet on the procedure. -- Cecropia 07:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA (Again)

Gracenotes, I'm considering reopening this. I have the firm support of one very long-term bureaucrat and the acquiescence of several others. Because of the circumstances of the nomination, I am hard pressed to determine whether or not consensus has been reached. The nearest analog I can think was the 2004 nomination of User:Quadell[10]. His nomination had been proceeding normally when he was accused of damaging Wikipedia by an action he had taken and the oppositions began piling on. Since the accusations were based on an assumption that may or may not have been true, I contacted User:Jimbo for his take on the situation. Jimbo's response satisfied most of the critics and Quadell went on to become a highly-valued contributor and admin. Please let me know if you're open to either (1) a "new" nomination for seven days as I had earlier suggested or (2) an "extension" of perhaps three days with the votes in place but new information added to clarify your stance. My own opinion is that the latter might be somewhat messy because of all the verbiage. Either way I would strongly urge you to prepare a new, coherent, RfA statement outlining exactly how you would approach the disputed issue, as well as any other information as to what kind of admin you would be. Please let me know when you have come to a decision. -- Cecropia 02:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My RFA also followed this pattern, it was only a couple of hours away from a successful conclusion with a heavy support consensus, when someone at the last minute made some negative comments and requested a 24-hour extension so that a bunch of oppose votes could come piling in. Why wasn't I also given this option of starting from scratch or extending for three days to let the last minute matter get hashed-out completely? CLA 03:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The most straightforward answer to your question is that I did not have my bureaucrat flag and I did not follow RfA at the time of your nomination, so I didn't know about it nor could I have had any special input into it. I had a different way of engaging the community than many of the 'crats who bore the burden while I was "recharging my battery." I don't know that there is anything to be done about your situation right now, but I will look at your RfA so I can gain any impression of what happened in your case. Thank you for writing. -- Cecropia 03:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your response and offer to look into it. I think you'll find that my RFA, coincidentally, touches on some of the same issues that came up in Gracenote's RFA. CLA 03:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's time to make a decision on how to proceed. You came out against a bcrat chat and so we've all been waiting for you. If you'd like to proceed with your plan go ahead, if not, set up the bcrat discussion. - Taxman ^Talk 13:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

closest analog?

You wrote on Gracenotes' talk page that the nearest analog to his RfA you can think of was the 2004 nomination of User:Quadell. I took a glance at it and I believe I understand what you mean. However, as has been brought up during GNs' RfA (by myself, admittedly), the closest analog I can think of is LessHeard_vanU's recent RfA, where Nichalp decided to promote. Cla68's RfA was a bit different, but finally failed for similar underlying reasons (by which I mean somewhat similar opposition). For your consideration. —AldeBaer 10:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that RfA out to me. I have read it and it has added to my understanding. -- Cecropia 00:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Of possible interest

A piece of data that may be of use, a very recent successful RfA closed with a 67% support. While the final decision is, of course, a judgment call from the 'crat who adopts it and RfA isn't supposed to be a raw numbers game, the closing bureaucrat (Rdsmith4 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)) may be able to offer guidance in how he navigated the rough waters of a contentious discussion in determining consensus. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I will look at that. -- Cecropia 16:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Also maybe take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/LessHeard_vanU. It dealt with the same issue, although overall I would say it went much more civilly. I don't mean to point to precedents, as we shouldn't hold to them in RfA decisions, just how a slightly similar issue was handled in the recent past. daveh4h 19:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC) (EDIT: Just noticed Alde Baer brought this up, I'm sorry for bothering you.) daveh4h 19:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

Categories

Hello; would you mind if I add to your userpage:

• Category:Wikipedia bureaucrats
• Category:Wikipedia administrators

Because I wouldn't have known you were an admin and b'crat if I had not seen your RfB a few weeks back. Thanks again ^_^. The Sunshine Man 21:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Compliment

Hey, just wanted to let you know I think you're doing a great job as a bureaucrat, from the way you're going about the resolution of Gracenotes' RfA. Not that I have a lot of experience with bureaucratic processes, but still. I hope you derive some enjoyment from the job, too. Phaunt 01:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a nice compliment. I enjoy engaging the community. Most of the job is humdrum, but the "easy RfAs" don't talk long. Rarely there is a very time consuming and difficult RfA, but I figure I can't only do the easy and straightfoward ones. -- Cecropia 17:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Your quote on the RfA discussion of GN

Because i'm being quoted in your section directly, I think i need to clarify. My comment was towards the proces of how to close this RfA (whom to ignore and whom not) and how people were telling the bureaucrats how they should do their job, not so much as the opinion the bureaucrats were supposed to have on wether Gracenotes should be admin or not based on the discussion. These people could have voiced their opinion and advice without directly telling the crats what their job should be. I meant to communicate that we should trust that crats will read the RfA and the comments meticulously if an RfA developed the way it had and that voicing your opinion on what the bureaucrats job is would be enough. It's a small semantical diff that wasn't entire clear perhaps in my original comment, but i do care about clarifying it. Beyond that, i think you are spot on with your assessment btw. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Or shorter perhaps. I found it rude that people were telling crats what to do, instead of asking them to consider things --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, DJ. Could you point me to the exact location of the quote you have mentioned? -- Cecropia 16:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes certainly *reading about "The Bureaucrat's Job." Some feel that "we trust the bureaucrats to do the right thing, that's why we picked them out." * --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In retrospect: when i changed it to "--> bureaucrat tips on talk page. Bureaucrats are more then capable enough..." I guess I should have made it more clear to future readers that 'tips' was meant to be sarcastic. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't have any comment of yours particularly in mind. I was just distilling an often-stated sentiment. -- Cecropia 17:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Gracenotes' bureaucrat chat

I don't have any problems with waffling to buy time, but one sentence I think I really must question you on. (Yes, I know I'm not a bureaucrat and my opinion is therefore worthless and undesired, but listen anyway).

Because (barring sock- or meat-puppetry) each expression of opinion in an RfA represents the opinion, raw, half-baked or done to perfection, of a Wikipedian in a system which we believe gives everyone an equal voice.

The way in which RfA works means that opposers' voices are four times louder than supporters', while those voting neutral are barely audible – Gurch 19:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Those are the rules by which Gracenotes' RfA was held. If you don't agree, campaign to change the rules; the bureaucrats can't but uphold them.

Minor nitpicky semantical point: The opposers' voicers are three times as loud as the supporters', and only two times louder. Phaunt 19:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's true that opposers' voices can have more impact than supporters', and I agree that this can sometimes be unfair, but the way we do things is a compromise in a system where the community as a whole is expected to feel that a person is ready to be an admin. If this were a literal vote, with 50% + 1 decided that someone should be an admin, where would be the trust in someone who almost 1/2 the community opposed? -- Cecropia 19:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC

I know that you have a lot on your plate right now, but I just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 12:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I am a little engaged right now, but I will take a look at that. Thanks for letting me know. -- Cecropia 14:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Cecropia. I am concerned that oppose votes in the Gracenotes RfA may be dismissed as being due to the candidate's failure to give 100% support to the idea of removing 100% percent of links to attack sites regardless of context. I'm particularly concerned at the comments from Nichalp, where he says that most of the opposers opposed because they thought Gracenotes supports linking to these sites, and in fact he doesn't, so promotion would be appropriate. I think that is a misrepresentation (though very likely an innocent one) of the views of those who have concerns about trusting the buttons to someone who shows the attitude that the candidate shows towards a site which engages in feverish attempts to find out the real life identity of Wikipedians (posting what they believe are their photos, trying to contact what they believe are their ex-boyfriends, or egging on those who do). As I pointed out at the Bureaucrat chat talk page, it's a bit like seeing lots of people opposing a candidate because of concerns over civility, and then dismissing those votes by claiming that the opposers opposed because they wanted to see an exaggerated, excessive, obsequious politeness.

I will accept whatever the decision is, but at the very least, I would hope that the bureaucrats would try not to be influenced by misrepresentations of the concerns of the opposers. Could I request that you read my post, linked to above? I admit it's long, and I apologize for that. But it does make what I believe are very important points — especially the one that I recently supported someone for adminship after he said that he thought it would be okay to link to attack sites in the "Daniel Brandt" and "Criticism of Wikipedia" articles; and that SlimVirgin thanked him for his reply and didn't vote. Thanks. Musical Linguist 15:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)