User talk:Cecropia/Archive 9
November 2004
[edit]Hi Cecropia, request
[edit]Hi Cecropia, I would like to respectfully request that the RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK be closed finally as many "48 Hour" deadlines have passed since its inception almost one month ago. I will also ask User:Ed Poor. Thanks again for all your help. IZAK 02:23, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Track Mileage on NYC Subway
[edit]Thanks, Cecropia for the suggestions. I've updated with more precise information from another source.
The link you just added here to "vote here" goes to an uncreated edit page--am I just ahead of the game and you're in the process of creating it? (I already voted so it doesn't affect me specifically...) Elf | Talk 18:43, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
See these six categories up for "votes of deletion":
[edit]See these six categories up for "votes of deletion":
Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Palestinian_terrorists and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Palestinian_terrorist_organizations and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Middle_East_terrorists and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Terrorist_organizations and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Islamic_terrorist_organizations and this one too: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Jewish_terrorist_organizations
IZAK 10:10, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Opinion for IZAK
[edit]Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence. Thank you. IZAK 07:45, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
adminship
[edit]I understand your point but do not share it. The nominations I made are long overdue and should not engender the least bit of controversy. Most votes are made based on the voter's experience with the candidate, with a handful of people who are concerned about edit counts and so on checking that. Overall, I don't believe that the nominations I have made thus far are likely to tax the resources of those who follow RFA.
I am, however, done for today.
I note that you moved my list. I wish you wouldn't have, though I will not move it back. There are a lot of good contributors who fall through the cracks, as it were, and the quality of the "admin corps" could be raised up by recruiting them. As with politics, those best suited for the job are sometimes loathe to seek it.
Best regards
uc 19:42, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
By way of evidence for that, I note that my nominees have thus far garnered over 70 "support" votes and not a single "oppose" or "neutral." uc 19:51, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Salve, Cecropia!
I'd second your notion to refrain from new RFA nominations for a few days. One little projects I've adopted is to keep the list of candidates at WP:NAC up to date and every time I checked my watchlist today it seemed we had a new candidate. I think your idea fits in with the progressive idea of the "short ballot". A few days won't hurt anyone. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 19:54, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
There is no change of process as regards the nominations I have just made. Each one of them is a contributor personally familiar to me who I believe is deserving of adminship. I reviewed their contributions again to be sure before nominating. There have in the past been both quiet times and busy times on RfA, and there have in the past been times when a user has had several nominees on the page at once. The wiki continues to turn. Best, uc 20:24, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I responded to your latest epistle on my talk page. uc 20:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting my talk and user pages. It would seem that a substantial portion of the talk history is gone, however. I guess I'll have to dig for it... SV 06:25, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
re:congratulations
[edit]thank you kindly, dear bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to the privilege dab 10:18, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
re:Congratulations
[edit]Thanks :D -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 15:22, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
re:Congratulations
[edit]Thanks also! Hyacinth 00:19, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have drafted a proposal for a new voluntary association on Wikipedia (joining groups like the Wikipedia:The Business and Economics Forum and the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club) to promote discussion of a sort of system of expert review on Wiki. Please take a look and add your ideas. 172 02:39, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick response! I'm also at a loss as to what those standards might and how they would be enforced. I'm hoping that the page will spark a discussion, though, that will lead a large group of users to collaborate and eventually create a detailed draft proposal... Please edit the page/modify the initial statement as you see fit. 172 02:54, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have drafted a proposal for a new voluntary association on Wikipedia (joining groups like the Wikipedia:The Business and Economics Forum and the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club) to promote discussion of a sort of system of expert review on Wiki. Please take a look and add your ideas. 172 02:33, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Wonderful idea! I have joined. I will let some others know. Thank you. IZAK 03:35, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Your father
[edit]Your father must be a kind and very wise man, fascinating quotes! -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 16:16, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
ArbCom
[edit]Cecropia, do you have any interest in running for the Arbitration Committee? I ask because your edits, comments, and decisions have always greatly impressed me. You seek community consensus, and you act upon community consensus, even, perhaps, in cases where you were personally opposed to the matter. I think you are exceptionally fair-minded and qualified, as I believe even your user page shows. Just a thought. func(talk) 20:21, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that it isn't by nomination. I heard Raul654 comment on the matter, he said words to the effect of "it is a trivial matter for someone to get someone else to nominate them", or something like that. There is, however, an Endorsements page, where I would, of course, speak of you in glowing terms, if you wish to run. :)
- Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2004
- Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2004/Candidate_statements
- Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2004/Candidate_statements/Endorsements
- Actually, it probably isn't a good idea for me to be endorsing anyone at the moment. I seemed to have entangled myself into a running dispute with two users at the endorsements page.... :( func(talk) 06:09, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
While I understand your concern, I don't believe there is any reason to rush in closing the nomination. Jeronimo had already indicated that he was willing to be nominated, at User talk:Taxman, and while it is problematic that he has not visited RFA to indicate this, I don't see any policy that requires him to do it within any particular timeframe. Since Taxman hadn't brought the nomination to his attention, it probably hadn't occurred to Jeronimo that he needed to "formally accept."
I doubt if leaving the nomination up for a few more days would hurt anything.
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:56, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Cec, I fear I'm not being clear.
I would like to make it clear that I am not striving for any sort of inclusivity regarding adminship. I'm not stumping for lower standards. However, I would like to strive to make the process less adversarial and painful for nominees. Some recent nominees have been especially worthy Wikipedians who have not followed RFA very much and are unfamiliar with its procedures. I don't think that it should be a requirement that someone be an RFA expert in order to become an admin.
To put it bluntly, I believe that you're making up your own rules by imposing a 24-hour deadline for someone to "formally accept" a nomination. I find this disturbing, particularly since it was not that long ago that you, in like fashion, unilaterally announced a "nomination moratorium," which upon discussion was not supported in the least by the community.
Again, to be perfectly clear, it was your insistence upon imposing an ultimatum with a short deadline, in particular, that I found most disturbing. If Jeronimo had ignored the page for some days and clearly was uninterested or unwilling to visit it after being asked to do so, then I would have supported removing the nomination.
The purpose of requiring nominees to accept a nomination is to prevent unwanted or frivilous nominations. I don't believe that insisting that a nomination be accepted in a certain manner and within a certain timeframe is required, nor should it be. If the candidate wants the nomination, that's good enough for me. I believe that it is quite sufficient that candidates either give permission in advance or accept after being nominated. We joke about this being a bureaucracy, but let's try not to live up to that overmuch.
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Congratulations, Troll Soul!
[edit]Posted on User_talk:ClockworkSoul
Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:07, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks, Cecropia! Also, regarding what you wrote on the admin page, ClockworkTroll did have a great imagery to it, and that was part of the reason I loved it so much. However, times change, and even though the dissenting view was in the minority it was clear that I would be better off in the long-term with the new name. And besides, this one's pretty interesting too: ClockworkSoul has kind of a Descartes Ghost in the Machine feel to it, don't you think? Thanks again! ClockworkSoul 14:31, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Re:Nom time limits
[edit]Thanks for asking for clarification. Yes, I do support giving an open-ended extension. Sorry for the confusion. →Iñgólemo← (talk) 16:59, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)
Endorsement
[edit]
Greetings. You have my endorsement for Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004, and you have therefore earned the Quadell seal of approval. Feel free to use this image, or not, as you like. (You won't hurt my feelings if you don't.) – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 05:03, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for informing me about my sysophood. I hope I won't irrevocably wipe out half of Wikipedia when I try out those rollback and delete buttons for the first time. All the best from someone whose name certainly isn't Karl, <KF> 10:42, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
Your opinion please
[edit]What do you think I should do about this Should i revert or leave the page as it is? Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 00:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Adminship
[edit]I hope I'm not stepping out of line here, but could you please check Wikipedia:Requests for adminship and do some sysop-ing? -- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 12:06, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
A Message to my Fellow Candidate
[edit]Friend,
The Arbitration Committee elections are almost here. I humbly ask for your vote in this election cycle. I have been a user of Wikipedia for over a year. I was here before the Community Portal, categories, or <tt>{{stub}}</tt>. I know how Wikipedia operates, and I am prepared to do my part to deal with problematic accounts. I wish to cut out the bureaucracy that makes our website stagnate. We need solutions to our problems now. If you want an arbitrator who believes in action, frankness, honesty, and fairness in every case, I am your arbitrator. Thank you for your time. You are under no obligation to answer this message.