User talk:Cecropia/Archive 22

April - May 2007

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Question on your RFB

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Congratulations on becoming a~~administrator~~ '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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

I applaud your re-survival of the whole encounter. Hopefully it wasn't too traumatic for you. :) bibliomaniac 1 5 05:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Congratulations

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)[reply]

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

Khukri

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

(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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [1].--Drboisclair 00:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Re: Seeing the Bureaucrat Discussion

I take it this subpage hasn't been created yet? G1 gg y ! _{Review me!} 07:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 [2]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]