User talk:Cecropia/Archive 20.2

March 2006

Concern about a user

Cecropia - I noticed you've been closing recent RfAs, so I thought you might be able to help with my concern. I noticed that User:Zaheer89 has been voting 'oppose' on several recent RfAs with little explanation, and looking at their contribs, it looks like they may be a sockpuppet of a banned user. Specifically, the first two contribs are adding terrorists and criminals to the Islam in Australia list and with only 32 edits they have voted 'oppose' on 4 RfAs and 'delete' on 2 AfDs with no 'support' or 'keep' votes. What do you think? Are you able to check if they are using the same IP as a banned user? Thanks! -SCEhard T 15:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your constant work

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

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

Thank you!

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

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

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

Sprotection info

Thanks Cecropia,

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

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

Thanks for the solution on Cyde

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

regarding the neutral tag

It was a minor misunderstanding... Whats the biggie

Re-tally, don't know if it matters

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

Re: CTA Silver Line

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

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

Neutral Admin Needed

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

RfB

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

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

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

RFA promotions

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

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

Jaranda RfA

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

Ooh, thanks!

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

Re: Christian Peacemakers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3rd party view request which may interest you.

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

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

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

International Criminal Court - an apology

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

Adminship

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

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

Thanks for your comment on Doug Bell's talk page

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

Thanks

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

Apology

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

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

Why you owe me an apology

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

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

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

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

edit summary: not so impossibly unlikely as has been suggested:
I would point out, that at the current vote totals when closed, it would only take one oppose changing to support (which had already happened once on this RfA) and one additional support vote to cross that magic 75% threshold, or two opposes changing to neutral, or one oppose changing to neutral (which had also already happened on this RfA) and two additional support votes. I think, particularly given the entire discussion, that these scenarios are perhaps not so impossibly unlikely as has been suggested above. I'm just disappointed that this has been turned into a precise numbers vote and not one where common sense prevails. (I mean, even if just one additional oppose changed to support, that would be 74.3%...) I was under the impression from all of the contentious RfA's I've witnessed, that the closing bureaucrat was supposed to determine the validity of the votes, otherwise let's just write a 'bot to do it. Additionally, I see other discussions on this page (Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard) where close RfAs/RfBs are sometimes extended, instead of being cut short. I'm disappointed with how this was handled. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 01:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
edit summary: reply to NoSeptember:
I think you are missing a very important aspect of CBDunkerson's comments. When you combine the fact that Francs2000 was wrong both on the time of closing and on the current ratio of the voting, and the fact that two oppose votes (10%) had already changed their vote—one to support and one to neutral—that there was a case and an opportunity for handling the RfA differently. It would not take "6 to 12 support votes" if one or more of the oppose votes was either discounted or the editor casting the oppose vote changed their vote. (The basis for including the "12" vote figure is lost on me, unless it is included simply to create an impression of WP:SNOW, as I don't see 77% in any of the discussions.) I think it somewhat disingenuous that the liklihood of this occuring keeps being characterized as insignificant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What will you do?

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

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

In all honesty...

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

I will therefore contact a developer and request that my bureaucrat abilities be revoked, forthwith. Thank you for your support. -- Francs 2000 12:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding

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

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

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

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

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

Greetengs

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

Clarification

You said the following on the bureaucrats' noticeboard:

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

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

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

Some days are just full of fun

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

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

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