Cecropia (36/10/0); original end 03:55, 3 Apr 2004; vote extended to 03:55, 10 Apr 2004

Cecropia has been involved in some hot editing at George W. Bush and has stayed cool. He is a constant presence on the talk page, and has been a very useful contributor on this and other topics. Here for 3 months, over 800 edits. Meelar 03:55, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for nomination, Meelar. I'm honored and pleased and hope the community will agree with you. I am interested in and try to contribute on a range of non-contentious subjects that I believe will add to Wikipedia. On subjects where I have a POV I try to see to it that my postings are accurate and document whenever I can. I try to honor those who disagree with me by being straightforward as to where I'm coming from. I suppose, to quote Marlowe's Faust, that "disputing" is one of the pleasures of an intellectual life, but I'm most pleased when we can reach a consensus, as we seem to on the Terrorism/Draft. Cecropia 04:20, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

1. Meelar 03:55, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. Ambivalenthysteria 10:19, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
3. Tuf-Kat 14:18, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
4. Danny 14:20, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
5. Bkonrad | Talk 14:46, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

   Since Get-back-world-respect asked me today on my talk page what I thought about Cecropia's nomination, I thought I'd emphasize my support here--since I guess a simple vote isn't enough of an indication for GBWR. I have not had a lot of interaction with C. -- mostly on the Kerry page, and while C and I have disagreed, he was never difficult to work with (in fact rather pleasant actually) and we have always been able to reach a reasonable compromise. Bkonrad | Talk 14:54, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

   Ah, GBWR fights the battle on many fronts! ;-) Cecropia 15:09, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

6. — Jor (Talk) 15:56, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC) We can use people that can keep their heads cool!
7. I don't think the guidelines for sysophood are too important. Cecropia is a good example of why you don't need x number of edits to be a sysop. Ludraman | Talk 19:01, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
8. GrazingshipIV 05:56, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
9. Decumanus | Talk 16:15, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
10. Isomorphic 01:06, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) - He has probably been the most constructive contributor in the (generally well-behaved) discussion over terrorism/draft. Maintains civility. A pleasure to work with. Isomorphic 01:06, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
11. If Isomorphic trusts him, I do. →Raul654 14:54, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
12. A solid contributor. Jwrosenzweig 17:44, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
13. I'm seriously missing something here. If there is a negative POV in an article and a user solicits a counter POV, that's supposed to make the article NPOV. That doesn't mean that the user who contributed the counter POV is inherently POV him/herself, it means they're trying to "neutralize" the article. All in all, I've seen nothing but proper civility here at this discussion and feel that Cecropia has handled himself admirably. This is a rare case where I wasn't going to vote but was impressed by the user enough to vote in the positive. RADICALBENDER ★ 18:16, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

    Hell, no! If there is POV you should edit it, not add more nonsense. We do not need entries that go like "George W. Bush is called a fascist and a warmonger. He is also a very honourable person that was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize." Get-back-world-respect 21:58, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

14. Jia ng 22:48, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
15. Ruhrjung 23:32, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) — rather strong support, actually. I've spent some hours to read through Talk:Terrorism/Draft, Talk:George W. Bush, the actual articles, and some more contributions and am truly impressed by the wit and civility.
16. Ryan_Cable 04:08, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)
17. Mdchachi 15:43, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) Cecropia's record speaks for itself. I completely agree with RadicalBender. In the (highly POV) Bush article, Cecropia tried to build consensus and make it NPOV or present balancing views.
18. Hephaestos| § 20:14, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
19. Quinwound 21:14, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
20. jengod 00:41, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
21. As much as I hate to agree with the two people who appear to be my archenemies, support. A useful editor, and time here is not an issue (Can the UDHR be applied here?). - Woodrow 20:26, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
22. Angela
23. Remarkably level-headed and open. As with Dec, 'the perfect temperament' to be an admin. +sj +
24. Fennec 16:59, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
25. David Newton 19:31, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
26. Maximus Rex 03:46, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
27. Catherine 04:21, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
28. support this guy looks like he knows what he's doing, he looks like he has the time as well-- Plato 15:48, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
29. V V 01:11, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
30. ugen64 22:25, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
31. -- Eloquence * 05:55, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC) (that I disagree with someone politically does not mean they wouldn't make a great admin)
32. Support —Morven 18:38, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
33. Support, I finially got around to looking into him, and I can't see what the hold up is! Sam Spade 19:55, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
34. Support, after looking over his work; appears well qualified. Pollinator 12:34, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
35. Support. Made long-overdue articles for Fall of the House of Usher and Jukes and Kallikaks. Smerdis of Tlön 16:17, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
36. Support. Although I would not support him to admiralship. *grins* - UtherSRG 11:58, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• oh yes, he is my master and fully deserves admiralship Mijnheer 17:41, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Sockpuppet. That was his first edit. →Raul654 17:53, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • Admiralship? I'd be willing to start as midshipman. Cecropia 18:43, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Not yet enough experience here, IMHO. This is nothing personal. I will most probably support at a later date. Cecropia is a valued contributor. Kingturtle 17:55, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
2. This user set his personal support for George W. Bush over the interest of an unbiased community in numerous cases. E.g. he frequently used valuing expressions like "the argument is countered", and even included a lengthy paragraph about "French, German, Russian commercial conenction to Saddam's Iraq" in the GWBush entry. Get-back-world-respect 15:05, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

   I don't know how appropriate it is for Get-back-world-respect to carry his personal feud over to this forum, but I am don't hide my opinions behind bogus justification ("the article is too large") but I see to it that my edits are as accurate and neutral as they can be, I supply respected citations on contentious subjects (including the French-German-Russian issue, where my main source was BBC), and I stand by the integrity of my submissions. I encourage anyone here to judge my work and my justifications in talk before voting for or against me. Cecropia 16:29, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

   Cecropia, feel free to provide any link proving that I tried "to hide my opinions" behind the bogus sole justification "the article is too large" if I should ever be nominated for adminship - although I do not want to be an admin here anyways. In the meantime, you may explain why someone should be an admin here who thinks that a whole paragraph about alleged "French, German, Russian commercial conenction to Saddam's Iraq" is vital to the GWBush entry. Get-back-world-respect 23:22, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

   I was not referring to you personally except to note your carrying over your personal animosity toward to me to this forum, nor will I respond to an attempt to re-fight the war in Iraq here. I am trying to give those reading and voting here my philosophy of editing, and as I said, it will stand or fall on its own. Cecropia 00:05, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

   Not trying to re-fight the Iraq war here but on the GWBush entry? Unless you can explain why the paragraph was needed I do not see why you should be granted adminship. Get-back-world-respect 14:44, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

   Now I'm sad! I thought you supported me. ;-) Cecropia 14:48, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

   Any valuable statements or answers to the question? Get-back-world-respect 15:00, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

   Well then, see talk. Cecropia 17:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

3. I find it funny how Cecropia is being nominated for "keeping it cool" with the George Bush article, when (s)He has been just as POV as the rest of them (pro-Bush POV). I don't claim to be any better, but at least I don't try to pretend not to have any bias when my edits show completely otherwise. "Supporters of the administration counter...", removal of the accusation that the war broke international law, , etc. Heck, at least I can point to a couple edits that I did that were favorable to Bush. What have you done, at all, that wasn't favorable to Bush? No offense to Cecropia personally - this is an article for which it will be very hard to find anyone who doesn't have a POV. Rei

   Now, in fairness, Rei, I feel I do not try to hide my POV. The Bush article has been one I've actively worked on partly because it is was so openly hostile to the man while the Kerry article is so warm and fuzzy. As to POV in general, of course editors have a POV; virtually anyone of intellect does (and quite a few of little intellect, unfortunately). It is the writing where s/he strives to present NPOV. On an article like GWB though, where passions run so strong, I suppose the best we can hope for is balance, rather than strict NPOV. I'm a little disappointed that you've joined in here because I feel that we were able to reach at least a friendly armisitice in out discussions, if not agreement. I am satisfied that Wikipedians are judging me on my merits, but since the only central complaint with me is over the GWB article, can I avoid getting the impression that some feel the qualification for an admin is to assiduously avoid controversal topics? I get the unpleasant feeling from GBWR that he feels that Bush is so bad that he finds it necessary not only to have him tried for war crimes, but that anyone who supports him in any way should be condemned as well. Cecropia 18:08, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

   The question is not whether Cecropia has a POV. Everyone has one. Nor is the question whether you agree with his POV. It's whether he is respectful and follows the rules while expressing it. From my experience, this is the case. The fact that he hasn't made any anti-Bush edits to the page is meaningless, since we have plenty of users (and even more anons) who will happilly add anything negative about Bush. There's no need for him to add more. Isomorphic 18:13, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

   The question is whether one can have an opinion and still edit in a neutral way. In my eyes, Cecropia cannot, two others agree. Get-back-world-respect 21:21, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

4. Does not follow NPOV. -- Wik 17:55, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
5. I have some issues with the various discussions above. I would be more comfortable at a later date when I've seen more. - Texture 22:21, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
6. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 21:39, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Moncrief 05:55, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
8. Oppose. 172 02:01, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Does not always follow NPOV; tries to discredit users opposing his position with polemics (e.g. labeling seriously meant contributions by Get-back-world-respect as "comic relief" in Talk:George_W._Bush/Archive_5) Marcika 03:28, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC).

   Yes, but look what Cecropia was responding to. GWBR's post above (one of his first as a logged-in editor I think, and definitely his first post to that talk page) is a borderline attack on Cecropia ("Sadly enough with people like you it is not difficult to figure out which side you are on") and frankly it was rather amusing for GWBR to say that while his own user name broadcast his opinion. Isomorphic 10:20, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

10. Oppose. Nico 07:43, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Tεx τ urε 14:23, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC) - for now Oops... someone buy me some memory...
      • Hey, just because the vote was extended doesn't mean you get to vote twice. -- Michael Snow 15:11, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

• It is unclear to me why this person needs would better benefit the community with admin powers. -anthony

Well, I don't think that he needs it per se--no one person actually needs admin powers. I just think that both him and the community would benefit from it--Lord knows I couldn't deal with George W. Bush without my "rollback" button. Meelar 18:01, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Summarizing the objections: we have two people saying he's too new (reasonable,) three who say he doesn't follow NPOV (which is just not true, as anyone can verify by looking through his contributions) and three who didn't explain themselves. Isomorphic 05:16, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(and 31 people who support him) Ambivalenthysteria 11:58, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

14 of which didn't explain themselves. One argues "If Isomorphic trusts him, I do." And Isomorphic declares accusations that Cecropia didn't follow NPOV "just not true", although clear evidence is given above. Get-back-world-respect 18:27, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Is this becoming the (possibly abridged) Wikipedia version of the Hundred Years' War? Cecropia 19:10, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't believe that someone whose user page declares that "if I can only convince one person with my argumentation I am satisfied" has a right to lecture anyone about NPOV. Your purpose here is to persuade, not to inform. Isomorphic 20:42, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Let's be fair. While I've disagreed with edits made by GBWR, he's been active on talk, and has not been unreasonable. What's on a user page is not important; he(?) has made valuable contributions to an article. That's a tough article for everybody.

What's wrong with convincing one person? With statements like "just not true" against better knowledge you will certainly not convince all of us. Talk is for discussion, entries for information. And changing biased edits is a legitimate means of preventing propaganda like Cecropia's about French and Russian financial interests in Iraq in the GWB article. Get-back-world-respect 13:04, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I treated my edits in respect of French/German/Russian at some length in the talk here—and judging by the response, most deemed it appropriate material. You've mentioned this over and over, including in other places. What is it about that particular issue that angers you so much? Cecropia 13:48, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comment:

• Looks like 78% support. Is that enough of a consensus for promotion to admin? -- Uncle Ed 13:31, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  You are the bureaucrat. You decide. ✏ Sverdrup 14:13, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  Ed, I sugggest you read the recent polling at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Polls_2 →Raul654 16:35, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

How about a fast rule of 80% of all voters and 80% of all voting sysops? -- Dissident 15:51, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No. According to recent community decisions, sysops are not supposed to follow a hard rule, but use their own judgement.

Action:

• I deem this to be consensus. Cecropia, I hope you will merit everyone's trust. -- Uncle Ed 19:06, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)