Cecropia
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 |
- Full year 2006
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: [1][2] Most of the earlier matches for the company are foreclosure notices, but here's an act describing it: [3][4][5] --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
|
The article Autistic savant, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup. If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page. |
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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 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)- 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)
- I applaud your re-survival of the whole encounter. Hopefully it wasn't too traumatic for you. :) bibliomaniac15 05:18, 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 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)
- Iamunknown, that is mistaken information that was garnered from the Fordham website. The copyright date is 1971.--Drboisclair 20:51, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- How is it not in the public ___domain? --Iamunknown 04:30, 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)
- (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)
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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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: [6].--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[7]. 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)
- 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 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:
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
Concerns about false representation of reasons for opposing Gracenotes
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)
- [...]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 [...]. Could you please relate this directly to Gracenotes in his opinions or responses with examples, please? Thanks, Cecropia 16:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Please revise your edit
Hello, please consider revising your edit in International Criminal Court. I believe that you are correct in that my POV projects into the title of the section. If the section remains titled US Objections, it will not work because this is not a primary objection of the Bush Administration, but a secondary one articulated by the Clinton Administration. Would you consider another title that is not US specific? There are reliable sources to suggest quiet concerns by other nations in this regard, although it was most clearly articulated by David Shaffer, Clinton's Representative to the ICC Convention. I will otherwise need change your title myself, you might do a better job. Raggz 06:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- I would ask that you revise your title yourself, but be cautious that it be in Wikipedia format (First letter of entire title of the section capitalized only, unless there is a proper name involved) and that the title reflect a neutral description of the paragraph content. -- Cecropia 07:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Reedy Boy's Admin Status
Hey Cecropia, Thanks for closing my RfA.
=)
Reedy Boy 08:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
|
Hello Cecropia, Thankyou for voting in my RfA. You will be pleased to know that it has been successful!! Meaning that I, Reedy Boy, am now an English Wikipedia Administrator. It passed with a suprising 47/0/0, and I really am grateful of all your support, and I hope that I live up to your high expectations! If there is anything I can do to help you out, please, do not hesitate to contact me!
|
![[1]](http://eagle.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/Repository/getimage.dll?path=BEG/1878/03/08/4/Img/Ar0040603.png){kind=link}
![[2]](http://eagle.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/Repository/getimage.dll?path=BEG/1878/03/08/4/Img/Ar0040605.png){kind=link}
![[3]](http://eagle.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/Repository/getimage.dll?path=BEG/1866/10/29/8/Img/Ar0080200.png){kind=link}
![[4]](http://eagle.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/Repository/getimage.dll?path=BEG/1866/10/29/8/Img/Ar0080201.png){kind=link}
![[5]](http://eagle.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/Repository/getimage.dll?path=BEG/1866/10/29/8/Img/Ar0080202.png){kind=link}
Thank you for the nice words. Of course, I didn't vote on your RfA, but I'm glad you're happy~ :) -- Cecropia 16:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar
Hi Cecropia, I can see Gracenotes RfA is most likely heading for a re-run. As I trust yours and the other cras judgement - I fully accept that result. However, I would personally like to commend you on your efforts with it - you've obviously worked hard at attempting to find a suitable consensus in an extremely hard environment to find one in. I hope this helps....
|
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
| I Ryan Postlethwaite, award you The Working Man's Barnstar for the amaing effort you have gone to with Gracenotes RfA, especially with the testing environment that you found youself in. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC) |
Gracenotes re-run feedback
I wanted to take a moment to correspond with you regarding a concern I have with how the Gracenotes discussion is progressing. Bureaucrats have been chosen to make the final call on some tough decisions that require judgment. The standards for b'cratship have been set very, very high because this judgment is such an ethereal quality that is measured in so many different ways by so many different editors. To reach the 90% consensus that's generally required to promote a b'crat is to have impressed upon so many different types of folks that your judgment is impeccable.
With this assertion of confidence comes responsibility, the responsibility to use the community trust to follow through and make the tough calls.
Re-running a contentious RfA is seductive. It sounds like the ideal solution, because a "problem" can be "fixed" and we ca "do it right this time". But it is a false reassurance. Re-creating the initial conditions of such a request is simply impossible, and in the end, disproportionate weight is given to the people from the first RfA who had the strongest opinions, because they are the ones that will make a point of showing up. Community consensus isn't reflected, because the community at large has moved on.
Whether the decision is made to promote or not, the responsibility of making the call rests with a single bureaucrat. You folks have been chosen for this job, and you owe it to the candidate and the community to follow through. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Chairboy, I respect your perspective and appreciate your sharing it with me. You have been a Wikipedia contributor nearly as long as I have been a bureaucrat, so we have both been around the block a few times.
- I don't agree with your characterization of the job of bureaucrat. It has evolved over time but a bureaucrat is charged with determining the community consensus, not simply closing an RfA. I have outlined the reasons that I believe this case requires extraordinary action; I'm sorry you disagree.
- I also disagree with your characterization of the reasoning for and consequences of a re-run. This may or may not work, but I believe it important to try. It is in no way a "seductive" "fix." If this succeeds it can help stabilize the running of RfA, a process some consider damaged if not "broken." If it does not succeed the bureaucrats have other options, as I outlined.
- Re-running this RfA is not unprecedented over the course of the bureaucrat system; nominations have also been extended, sometimes adding clarity, sometimes not. In one case I can think of extension enabled the RfA participants to re-evaluate a negative presentation of the candidate and the RfA was able to pass without extraordinary bureaucrat intervention.
- Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Cheers, Cecropia 17:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your thoughtful response. I sincerely hope that the interests of the project are properly served by this course of action, though I have reservations. I suspect that the RfA will have less participation and that a small group may hijack the proceedings, but I would be happy to be proven wrong. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- A quick note regarding the characterization of the job, I'm afraid you may have misunderstood one aspect of what I said. The job of a bureaucrat is determining community consensus, and in borderline situations like this, that is the "hard decision" I spoke of. I never meant to suggest otherwise, and apologize for being unclear above. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Understood and sorry if the misunderstanding was my fault. This will not destroy RfA at its worst and could help. It is still one candidacy. We will see how this goes; consider also that even if this doesn't do exactly what we hope, it may point us to a better method of approaching consensus in certain cases. -- Cecropia 20:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- A quick note regarding the characterization of the job, I'm afraid you may have misunderstood one aspect of what I said. The job of a bureaucrat is determining community consensus, and in borderline situations like this, that is the "hard decision" I spoke of. I never meant to suggest otherwise, and apologize for being unclear above. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your thoughtful response. I sincerely hope that the interests of the project are properly served by this course of action, though I have reservations. I suspect that the RfA will have less participation and that a small group may hijack the proceedings, but I would be happy to be proven wrong. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to give my feedback on this too, although I don't think feedback was solicited. If this is inappropriate for you talk page please remove it...
I posted against the idea of a rerun on WT:RFA. When you first described your rerun proposal at WP:BN, I was skeptical, but the way you have phrased it now (or the way I read it now), it sounds like a good idea. I also highly appreciate you walking everyone through your thought process at arriving at this decision. It's a very interesting way to approach this, and I do hope that it will result in a productive outcome, in this case and perhaps others (whatever the outcome may be). Coming from a newer user these comments may not mean that much, (and this will sound like ass kissing!) but I was highly impressed with the way you came at this. daveh4h 22:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi - just a nudge to check that you're aware that I've left this for you to close. I'd closed Ozgod and Mr.Z-man's RfAs before you were kind enough to remove them from the main WP:RfA page, but while I was checking through Hmwith's RfA I noticed that in your removal comment you'd already reached a decision on it. Warofdreams talk 03:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know what you have and haven't done. Saves me a lot of hunting around. :) I assume you're posting the notices and all on Z-man and Ozgod, so I'll do the postings on Hmwith. Cheers, Cecropia 04:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Re:Your RfA
I just saw the result a few minutes ago. Although I am disappointed, I'll just see this a positive step to keep working my best here at Wikipedia, eventually becoming a better editor, gaining the community's trust. Thanks for the uplifting comments, as well. Happy Wikying, hmwithtalk 04:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Haha, no, I know that this is simply your job. There was no consensus reached. That's policy, and I know that it's nothing personal. Cheers! hmwithtalk 04:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
NYC Meetup
Hello, Cecropia. Will you please join us for the upcoming NYC Meetup? RSVP here: Wikipedia talk:Meetup/NYC -- Y not? 15:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me
Please reconsider this decision: [8]. The request is supported by an ArbCom member and I understand that Jimbo Wales is aware of it - he has not however closed it as "fataly flawed". I'm not sure you have the authority to close an RfA on this basis, let it run its course. WjBscribe 18:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've got to say I think it was a poor descision to remove the request, if he's trusted to become an admin, he'll get the tools, if not, he won't, but a one person judgement that the request is fatally flawed doesn't seem the right way to go about it. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Neither the community nor the bureaucrats are empowered to circumvent policy through RfA. See WT:RfA. -- Cecropia 18:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Work needed
See Talk:Q_(New_York_City_Subway_service)#Service_History-- if you've kept your promise herein, keep at it! You have my permission to root for the Sox too! <g> // FrankB 18:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
bureaucrat chat
??? - please reassure me that this whole drawn-out affair has not been done in part to torpedo the idea of "bureaucrat chat". -- nae'blis 03:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't expect this to be a test case of bureaucrat chat; rather I thought that this RfA could find a community-based resolution and almost all the available bureaucrats either supported it or at least were willing to try it. It only went to bureaucrat chat when the candidate did not want to take the suggested route. It has dragged on for so long essentially because the candidate did not provide feedback even when asked politely multiple times. -- Cecropia 03:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's not a commentary on bureaucrat chat, though, and trying to derive a metaopinion based on a practice is perilous. Gracenotes has elaborated in numerous places why they feel the suggested options were suboptimal, which has nothing to do with how the 'crat chat did not work out in this instance. That's all I was asking, not questioning the eventual/apparent decision to not promote. -- nae'blis 03:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Are we talking past each other? You asked if this was drawn out, presumably by me, to torpedo bureaucrat chat. The short answer is "no." Bureaucrat chat has problems, as I believe I have made clear. Bureaucrat chat sort of worked in this case, in the sense that there is agreement among 'crats on what will be the likely final resolution on the RfA. However, the drawn-out ending helps illustrate the problems that can arise. I didn't expect that and did not set out looking for it. -- Cecropia 03:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- I suspect we are, to an extent. Your initial response didn't seem to give a clear "no", and while I didn't expect you to have ulterior motives (AGF and all), your comment about "can I count you as being opposed to.." looked funny. I'm probably still getting used to your writing style, since you basically retired about the time I came to Wikipedia, IIRC. -- nae'blis 14:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. I did put a smiley (;-)) after the line. It was meant as a slightly frustrated, slightly sarcastic observation after a very drawn-out RfA. -- Cecropia 15:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- I suspect we are, to an extent. Your initial response didn't seem to give a clear "no", and while I didn't expect you to have ulterior motives (AGF and all), your comment about "can I count you as being opposed to.." looked funny. I'm probably still getting used to your writing style, since you basically retired about the time I came to Wikipedia, IIRC. -- nae'blis 14:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Are we talking past each other? You asked if this was drawn out, presumably by me, to torpedo bureaucrat chat. The short answer is "no." Bureaucrat chat has problems, as I believe I have made clear. Bureaucrat chat sort of worked in this case, in the sense that there is agreement among 'crats on what will be the likely final resolution on the RfA. However, the drawn-out ending helps illustrate the problems that can arise. I didn't expect that and did not set out looking for it. -- Cecropia 03:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's not a commentary on bureaucrat chat, though, and trying to derive a metaopinion based on a practice is perilous. Gracenotes has elaborated in numerous places why they feel the suggested options were suboptimal, which has nothing to do with how the 'crat chat did not work out in this instance. That's all I was asking, not questioning the eventual/apparent decision to not promote. -- nae'blis 03:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks! I know its part of your regular b'crat activity, but thanks in any case. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 07:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Gracentes RfA
Well, the battle is over and hopefully this sorry saga can now be put to bed. Upon reflection, maybe consensus couldn't determine whether Gracenotes should have got the bit this - an RfA with that much heated debate cannot easily show a consensus to promote. I think you did an excellent job throughout - often taking a lot of flack for trying to get things moving forward. There does seem to be a major concern coming out of this RfA though: The 'crats are supposed to be trusted members of the community, there's also a relatively small number of them, which means when descisions have to made, it is important that they all show up to attempt to solve these matters - this didn't happen in this case. I'm not sure the exact number of bureaucrats that we have, but it's certainly more than bothered to comment in the bureaucrat chat. On a grander scale, the bureaucrats that we have either do no bureaucratic work, or pop up every now and again to comment or close an RfA. This leads me to a wider issue, do some of the bureaucrats still have the communities trust? Would they still pass RfB? It's sad to say but I very much doubt it. When many of them became bureaucrats, the project was very much in it's infancy, users come and go all the time, this seems to be whats happened here - a lot of the bureaucrats have lost interest with the project and disappeared, or lost interest in doing their bureaucratic work. When we're discussing new procedures for RfA, it's a real effort to get a bureaucrat to come and comment on the idea's - they have to be dragged to WT:RFA to get something from them. Now I know the bureaucrats are supposed to be there to oversee RfA - but I see very little action from them in building up the process. I do have thoughts on the matter, maybe something similar to RfA on meta - where if they don't use the tools, they lose them - in my mind, it's imperative that the 'crats are currently extremely active members of the community, it saddens me when I see RfB's fail because "we don't need more 'crats," that's simply not true after taking a long hard look at this case. Anyway, rant over - it's certainly not aimed at you as you obviously have the communites trust, I just think that we might need to see some fresh faces on the ranks to restore credabillity. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- I will respond to you Ryan. I'm a little behind. -- Cecropia 07:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
RfA close
Hey, did you use the wrong close-box on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dfrg.msc, given your messages? Daniel 06:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, it seems that PeaceNT (talk · contribs) fixed it up whilst I was writing. Sorry for bothering you :) Daniel 06:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, what excellent service! :) Thank you both. -- Cecropia 07:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
FYI
There is no such thing as an official "policy maintainer", so everybody's word on that matter carries as much weight as everyone else's. >Radiant< 10:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I need to talk to someone about an IP user who keeps erasing my factual information in two articles and puts false information in its place. I do not want to continue this battle. I have left a message on his/her talk page, but he/she has not said anything back to me. What can I do? Please help--Thank you!
24.131.113.33 02:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Two-part rename
Great, I've done the usurpation, and posted about it to Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats. Warofdreams talk 12:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Email.
I think I've sent you an email, but I didn't get a copy of it (I get copies by default), so I'm inquiring: did you get an email from me? Will (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, I didn't receive it. -- Cecropia 21:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'll get onto writing it again, then. Will (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's been sent, I've made sure. Good luck! Will (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you!
What are these extra buttons? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
User Rename - Nordic crusader
Hi Cecropia, I am hoping you could do me a favor. I recently became a member here, with the username 'Nordic crusader'. Could you please, if possible, change it to 'Nordic Crusader'? i.e. capitilise the 'C' in crusader? Thankyou! --Nordic crusader 11:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Nc, I haven't done any renames yet. Though this certainly seems uncontroversial, protocol appears to require the request by made at WP:CHU. I'm sure if you make your request there it will be handled in short order. Cheers, Cecropia 14:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Cheers, I've done that now. --Nordic crusader 10:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)