User talk:Cecropia/Archive 20

Hollow Wierding RFA

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

hey

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

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

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

Greetings, and a question re RfAdmin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfB Quadell

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

Request regarding ArbComm elections

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you

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

Question about my nomination for bureaucratship

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

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

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

Inactive Bureaucrats

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

Martin Luther and the Jews Talk

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

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

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

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

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

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

Newest Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you! What's Next With This Issue?

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

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

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

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

Amityville Horror

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

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

Repromotion

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

You seem...

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

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

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

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

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

Bad decision !

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

User Doright

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

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

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

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

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

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

Punkmorten

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

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

WP:RFR

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

Please assume good faith

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

Edit conflict!

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

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

RFA Summary

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

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

First timer

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

Assisting with Self-Examination

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

Question

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

BRT and rail

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

Dates

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

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/William M. Connolley 2

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

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

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

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

Java

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

My RfA

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

Dylan

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

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

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

Quoting User Talk Pages on Article Talk Pages

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

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

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

IRC

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

Luigi

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

Jtkiefer bcrat nom

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

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

Or to put it another way

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

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

My RfB

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doright uses Talk page to attack User

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

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

Psst...

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

Thanks

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

Thanks

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

CSCWEM RfA

Cake for Cecropia!

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

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

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

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

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

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