Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Cecropia2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for bureaucratship. Please do not modify it.

Cecropia

(116/5/5); Ended 23:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Cecropia (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - This is my self-nomination to resume the duties of bureaucrat in English Wikipedia. Cheers, Cecropia 16:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Self-nomination not requiring separate acceptance

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A. I understand that the sentiments on consensus have moved in the direction of seeking agreement independent of strict numbers. I support this and always have and hope to learn, upon review, how the community now views this issue. My concern isn't in the overweaning important of numbers, but rather the kind of subjective judgment that the community is willing to grant bureaucrats.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A. As I always have. Labor to see that the most supportable decision is made, and then be ready to defend and explain that decision. As in the past, I would not change any decision (as with a referee or umpire) unless there were overwhelming or new information to show that the decision should be different. In that case, I would be inclined to support reopening or resubmitting the nomination to see if consensus has changed based on the new information.

3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A. On this question, I must ask that my past history be reviewed.

4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?

I was a bureaucrat here from June 2004 through March 2006, during which time I had the honor of pushing the button for 356 of our administrators (approximately 1/3 of all those promoted) and took the unhappy responsibility to remove some 100 or more nominations that didn't succeed (stats. I asked Angela to remove the bureaucrat flag from my account on April 1, 2006, a request which she kindly acceded to.

I wanted to take an extended vacation from "bureaucracy" and give others a chance to hash things out without me. I learned long ago in life the old business maxim that no one is indispensable and, if one really believes that, one must accept that premise for oneself. It has been a year and month and some days since I voluntarily left the bureaucracy. I could have simply stopped being active as many other bureaucrats have done without relinquishing the flag, but I wanted it to remove the technical rights assigned to bureaucracy so that I could make a clean break until the time came that I might resume my service and that, if I did wish to resume that service, I would stand before the community again for their assent and approval.

My record at Wikipedia as editor, admin and bureaucrat is a long and open book which I fully embrace, which is why I haven't answered the above questions individually. I always prided myself on striving to fulfill the promises I made when I first ran for bureaucrat.

Should the community honor me by again entrusting me with the bureaucrat's button you may expect me to act much as I did before. My highest calling is to use the community's consensus to discharge the bureaucrat's responsibilities, to always engage the community when questioned, and to act without favoritism. I will not be very active at first, so that I may study what has happened in the past year plus, to see how the community consensus has evolved. With respect, -- Cecropia 17:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Durin

5. What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A.:I believe that is the subject of 1. above.

6. What is your definition of consensus?

A.:What the community agrees it is. Consensus can change, otherwise a lot of polling organizations would go out of business.

Question from Tony Sidaway

7. When can you start?

A.:When and if a bureaucrat determines that consensus requires that he or she push the button which enables me to push the button. ;-)

Additional question from Durin

8. How would you have closed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Krimpet and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Slumgum? Please be as clear as possible and explain your rationale.

A.:Your question is reasonable but, considering the care I've always tried to give to difficult RfAs, I am at a disadvantage to try to, in effect, judge these already accomplished decisions. This is why I have said that, if my bcrat flag is restored, I will start slow so that I can gain a sense of community sentiment. On all the RfAs that I acted on, I had the advantage of being able to watch them as they progressed and, of course, I read all the comments on close RfAs, and followed arguments for and against to sources when provided. However, not to leave you with no answer, I will still apply Occam's razor to get a sense of RfAs before going in deeper. On that basis I can say that, on Krimpet's RfA, I would probably not have promoted in the case of the example given. Why? There were very significant objections, fully a third of those expressing an opinion. But more than that, the sentiment was that the editor needed some more seasoning so it seems that it would be in the best interests of all to give the editor a few more months before reintroducing a nomination, so that he or she could be expected to become an admin with more universal support. -- Cecropia 23:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

C'mon now... =P Krimpet (talk) 04:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

8A. Well, if we are going to play this game, how about Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryulong 3 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny? (Hint: there is no right answer. Show your working.) -- ALoan (Talk) 15:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Show my working? Does neatness count? :) As I alluded above, I cannot do justice to these RfAs in which I did not participate. I have a long history of engaging the community, whatever the definition of consensus has been. That history is an open book on issues that were not moot. -- Cecropia 16:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I will comment on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny, since I've had a chance to review it and it seems to be of broad interest in the community. Sorry for those who like binary responses, but I have to give a series of answers on different aspects of the issue:

1. I have no quarrel, on the face of it, with Danny resuming his admin abilities. He has reasonable need of it in his Wikiwork.
2. I think Danny comported himself very well in explaining his views.
3. But I think Danny made an error in deciding to submit his re-adminship to an RfA considering how dismissive he appeared of objections. Especially considering that he had an unusual claim to need the admin tools, it would have been better if he just asked for his admin bit back.
4. In terms of his RfA, it clearly did not reach consensus by any definition I could reasonably apply.
5. Since this involved such a high-profile issue, the Bureaucrats were right to consult with each other.
6. The bureaucrats did reach consensus among themselves, so the promotion is valid, and shouldn't be subject to challenge.
7. IMO though, the result didn't fit the facts. I think it sets a bad precedent because it suggests that in a process conducted among equals, some candidates are more equal than others.
8. The amount of opposition, both proportionally and substantively, still resulting in a promotion can make future decisions more difficult, as least in terms of the community's ability to accept their fairness. -- Cecropia 04:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from gaillimh

9. Is having a few extra buttons a big deal? Is having a few extra buttons to give someone a few extra buttons a big deal?

They can be. -- Cecropia 16:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I regret that you view my response as evasion, per your Oppose below. I try to say what I mean. You asked a straightforward question and that is a straightforward answer. I think the amount of argumentation about RfA is an indication that many believe that Bureaucracy is not a matter of "having a few extra buttons." So my response remains "they can be." -- Cecropia 17:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks again for taking time out to respond! Maybe it's my fault for being unclear, as I may have used colloquialisms that may be foreign to you. Basically, I'm wondering if you think being an admin is a big deal. If it is, do you think it shouldn't be? If it isn't, do you think it should be? How would you feel about promoting a user under the WP:PROA system? Again, I appreciate your responses, and please don't feel pressured to answer my queries :) gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 17:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There are two parts to the "no big deal" issue. First is whether the "additional buttons" is a big deal. My personal view is no in most cases. The ability to delete articles and protect articles could create administrative problems in the wrong hands, but at least those are reversible. The second part is what you might call the "trust and recognition" issue. Despite substantial sentiment that an admin is a janitorial position, there is also significant feeling that it displays trust in an editor; that to be an admin shows that the community gives an editor an honorable confirmation. So long as the latter feeling exists, adminship will be as big a deal as the community thinks it is. As to WP:PROA, plesae give me time to consider that; BUT be aware that no matter my personal feelings I have taken it as an article of faith that the community, not the 'crat, sets the standards for adminship. -- Cecropia 19:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the extended reply! I think the problem was with my original wording of the question. I find your commitment to the community consensus and the willingness to set your personal feelings aside to be terrific qualities in a bureaucrat on en.wiki gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 05:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from nae'blis

10. What are your thoughts on bureaucrats discussing controversial/borderline promotions amongst themselves to evaluate consensus, rather than acting singly in those cases? For a recent example, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Danny/Bureaucrat_chat. How and when would you utilize such a system, if you do support the idea?

In the specific case of Danny, I think the Bureaucrat Chat was absolutely the right thing to do. I think we need to be aware that Danny is also a very special case, due to his long history of service in Wikipedia and the many complex issues raised in the nomination. As a general rule, though, I have to be cognizant of the fact that an ongoing issue of RfA (and one which encouraged me to run for bureaucrat in the first place) is the fact that it has often been difficult to find a single bureaucrat to make certain that promotions/removals are made in a timely basis. With that in mind I believe the best policy is, that if a bureaucrat is thoroughly confident as to how an RfA should be handled, and is ready, willing and able to explain the decision, then that bureaucrat should act. Ordinarily if a bureaucrat see that a nomination needs to be closed but feels uncertain as to consensus, then it would be appropriate to either leave it alone long enough for another 'crat to act, or else actively consult at least one more 'crat. In truly difficult cases like Danny's, a discussion and consensus among 'crats is appropriate. Please understand that this is a matter of practicality among other things. If I were confident that, at any given time we could have at least three bureaucrats readily available, we could entertain the luxury of every judgment RfA being decided by at least 2 out of 3 'crats, with discussion when there is no unanimity, but this is getting into Dr. Pangloss territory. -- Cecropia 19:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Wizardman:

11. Why the sudden interest in reapplying for bureaucratship now, when you haven't been all that active in the Wikipedia community? Sounds kinda redundant to #4, but I'm mainly asking, why in early-mid May of all times?

There is no special date significance to reapplying in May, just as there was no special date significance to leaving on April 1, except that more than a year has passed and, when I happened to take a look at RfA to see what was going on, and saw that RfA was again very active. Is there something special about mid-May ("of all times") I'm missing? -- Cecropia 14:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

12. Could you basically sum up why you want to be a bureaucrat again and how you would handle yourself, as speaking to someone who has never seen you around before?

My philosophy is fairly well covered in the last paragraph of my comments below q.4. Also, I have been reminded of the many nice Wikipedians I engaged with in my prior term as bcrat, and I do feel that I still have something positive to add to the community. -- Cecropia 14:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from user:Lar:

13. As you know it has been deuced hard to get a 'crat promoted lately, some absolutely stellar candidates have failed. Do we have enough bureacrats? If you are promoted, will we at that point have enough then? Why or why not, in both cases... Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 21:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"Enough" bureaucrats is a very broad question that's has been around just about as long as the bureaucrat system, and am not sure it is a core question for whatever ails RfA. I think the issues that trouble us are more related to how bureaucrats perform and what the community wants bureaucrats to do. I think that if the current bureaucrats are not performing the jobs that need to be done, we need to ask "why not?" before simply adding more in the hope that more "warm bodies" will make the system work. Asking the implied question "what is wrong with more bureaucrats? the answer is that we need 'crats to be more or less on the same page on how to perform their duties. If we have a dozen 'crats who have a dozen personal criteria for promotion confidence in the system is liable to break down. Adding more 'crats can simply add more chaos without aiding the core situation.

IOW, I am saying we may or may not have enough bureaucrats but that I don't consider this question to be at heart of what seems to ailing RfA. The community seems to agree insofar as so few RfBs have been successful of late. I would ask that you refer me to one or two RfBs of "absolutely stellar candidates" that have failed. If I look at those particular examples it may help my understanding of why they weren't accepted.

To answer the other part of your question, if I am restored to bureaucratship I expect it will impact RfA positively but I wouldn't expect it will resolve the "enough" debate in and of itself. -- Cecropia 15:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You ask for examples of absolutely stellar candidates that have failed. Of recent RfBs, Majorly and Nihonjoe firmly deserved bureaucratship, and should have got it, if only the community wasn't so petty about it. Mackensen's RfB was more of a special case, in that he certainly would have received bureaucratship, if he hadn't used it to pitch his plans for reforming RfA. But all the others should have passed. Walton ^{Need some help?} 15:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from User:Eagle 101:

14. Just wondering, how would you deal with people who don't actively vote, but rather state a simple comment without the bolded voting words, such as on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MZMcBride, or [[1]] (note my comment on the discussion section). I'm just curious, and if you choose to wait till the first RFA actually closes, that is fine by me as well, —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 01:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

So long as we have segmented Support and Oppose sections, comments outside of those sections imply that the editor making those comments doesn't feel his or her remarks rise to the level of making a positive "support" or "oppose" declaration but rather are intended to inform other RfA participants in their considerations. So, insofar as we continue to count the number as well as the quality of editor statements, such comments are not included in the initial consideration at closing time. If the outcome of the RfA is in doubt, those comments should be considered. But you hold part of the answer: Why do you place your comments outside of the Support and Oppose (and Neutral) sections. How do you feel your comments should be regarded? -- Cecropia 15:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from User:FloNight:

15. Would you explain why your Wikipedia email is not enabled? And would you be willing to enable it so that the users can discuss issues relating to your use of 'crat tools? FloNight 19:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Now enabled. FloNight 22:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I did not realize my email was not enabled. It had been in the past. You (or anyone) may email me at [email protected]. Be sure to leave a note on my talk page if you do email since I do not always check that box often. -- Cecropia 21:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Cecropia's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• His rights log from his prior time as a 'crat. GRBerry 21:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

This question was posed on my User Talk. I'm posting the reply here so all can read it. I appreciate the question. -- Cecropia 17:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Was there a Wikipedia-related reason for your requesting to have Bureaucrat removed on April 1? - jc37 17:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. At the time there was some amount of contention from a few users as to how RfA was being and should be run. I believed (and still believe) that I and the other bureaucrats had broad community support. I have always been in the habit of explaining my reasoning and actions on Wikipedia quite thoroughly. I believed (and still do) that knowing that decisions are made reasonably and without personal favoritism was a key element in Wikipedians having confidence in a process that is considered to honor those in our community who have earned our trust. I am neither retired nor a student on break, and I needed to devote a lot of time to my Wikiwork, so that the long discussions were taking a toll on me and was getting just plain worn down. I was getting Wikiwilt. After talking myself out (many would not have thought that possible) in a contentious nomination, a user playfully (I think) suggested that I take a break and edit more (or something to that effect). It just struck me on the moment as a Very Good Idea and I took him up on it. It was a very good decision. Others have stepped away from Wikipedia in one way or another for awhile, and have come back (often) refreshed and better, IMO of course. -- Cecropia 17:52, 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)

Even so, after a year away, I think it's fair to give all and especially our last year's new Wikipedians a chance to say yea or nay. In fact, when Angela proposed that all Bureaucrats stand for affirmation annually, I was in favor it. So here I stand. :) -- Cecropia 17:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes... but why have it removed on April 1 in particular? Bishonen | talk 22:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Not sure where you're going with this question. If I asked "why on May 10 in particular?", would that question make sense to you? On the assumption that it wouldn't, my point is that unless you explain why April 1 seems different from May 10 (do you think Cecropia was joking?) your question sounds equally nonsensical. If the question "why on May 10 in particular?" does make sense to you, then perhaps you could explain why. I'm just flailing around and trying to work out what relevance you think a particular date would have. --Tony Sidaway 22:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There was no significance to April 1, unless I was making a joke; but I (obviously?) wasn't. Just a coincidence. -- Cecropia 23:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Consensus not numbers: If he really wants the chalice back, I will not stand in his way. I propose that we give Cecropia back his bureaucrat bit. --Tony Sidaway 17:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be a 'crat again, you did good work then, lets have you do good work again! Ryan Postlethwaite 17:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Welcome back, from what I can tell, your previous departure from bureaucratship was uncontroversial so I see no reason why you shouldn't have it back. John Reaves (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
   • Addendum:I don't see why you couldn't just have your flag back since you left under non-controversial circumstances, I'd suggest asking at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard
3. Support. Cecropia was one of our best bureaucrats for a long time. Chick Bowen 17:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Support - (3 editconflicts) has been a great contributor for nearly 4 years and has been able to cope with Bureaucrat duties before and can continue to do so in the future...----Cometstyles 17:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Support. Nothing more needs to be said. -- DS1953 ^talk 17:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Support. Worked well before, so not much to question here. Voice-of-All 17:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Support; experience, excellent judgement, always has the best interests of the project in mind: everything's good here. Antandrus (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
8. Support per all the above. Mike Christie (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
9. Support Did a great job before and will do a great job once again.--Alabamaboy 18:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
10. Support I admire your open and honest approach. --Dweller 19:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
11. Support. This is probably the best test yet of whether anyone can pass RFB. Effective Bureaucrat in the past and I trust he can be again. Dragons flight 19:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
12. Support per overall record as a bureaucrat, an admin, and a contributor. Newyorkbrad 20:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
13. Support. I agree that it's appropriate to go through RFB again given the amount of time passed since he quit.-gadfium 20:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
14. Support, see no reason to oppose given that he has successfully been a 'crat in the past and left under no cloud. Would not have objected to his simply asking for them back and receiving them, but also not objecting to his going through RfB again. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
15. Support I think that you could get these back just for the asking as any admin could go who gave up their privs under similar terms. The fact that you choose to go through this process again simply reaffirms to me why you should be reinstated. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
16. Welcome back. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
17. Strong Support contra Majorly. Full trust irrespective of intensity receng activity. Must have more crats. -- Y not? 21:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
18. Support - welcome back. The Rambling Man 21:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
19. I am in favour of reinstating this user as a 'crat--Doc^g 21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
20. Support. I'm not particularly convinced by concerns of recent inactivity — if this user made a fine job before, I'm sure he'd make a fine job now. The term "consensus" hasn't changed much since he resigned. Michaelas¹⁰ 22:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
21. Support. Briefly coming out of (semi)-retirement to support a great bcrat. ChazBeckett 23:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
22. I see no reason to oppose, pace Majorly below. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
23. Support. Crecropia performed an amazing 356 promotions during his previous term as a Bureaucrat. There is no doubt that he is committed to the project and would use the tools extensively (I hope they don't wear out). I think his answers above show that he is aware of the community's difficulties in deciding what constitutes consensus in RfAs and that he is sensitive to them (I don't see what more we can realistically ask). Basically he has a fanstatic CV for the job and I think we'll benefit from his being allowed to start being a 'crat again. WjBscribe 01:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
24. Support, did fine before, don't see why he wouldn't now. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
25. Support absolutely, good to have Cecropia back -- Samir 02:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
26. Support Honestly, it's not that hard to learn what's been going on at RfAs lately. He can just hang out for a few days and get the general idea of new changes to the system, and I think he would be fine from there. Besides, he's had tons of experience in the other aspects of bureaucratship, such as usurpations. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
27. Support I'm fully confident that Cercopia will take the time needed to get a feel for what has changed about RfA (if anything). Bottom line is that he's already shown that he's responsible enough to be an effective b'crat and his temporary absence is being given undue weight. Pascal.Tesson 03:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
28. Support, definitely. Cecropia was a great bureaucrat. I don't know why Cecropia resigned, but either way I am happy he wants to take up the job again. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
29. Support. Even though he stated in question #9 that he would have failed my recent RfA had he closed it... I don't have to worry about that. =P Looks like he was a great 'crat, no reason not to give him back his position. Krimpet (talk) 04:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    Ah, you have a generous spirit! :) I don't know that I would have failed your nomination based on the current concept of consensus, but I thought it appeared (since I didn't have the opportunity to give the nomination the attention it would have gotten if I were an active 'crat at the time) to be a textbook example of a nomination that could have been given a later revival with unqualified support. Mind you, I personally am not an edit counter; it is the quality and engagement with the community that impresses me, but the community doesn't ask me when it sets its standards. ;-) -- Cecropia 05:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

30. Maximim support. I remember when Cecropia was a 'crat the first time around. He was good then. He'll be good now. bd2412 T 04:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
31. A former 'crat who resigned for completely uncontroversial reasons, and wants the Big Black Buttons back? A user in good standing with no evidence of ever breaking anything? Who has already proved responsibility by being a 'crat? Yeah, I'm all in support for that. ♠PMC♠ 05:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
32. Support. With no complaints before, I don't see why there should be any now. And why should we discourage people from coming out and saying that they're taking breaks, when others just disappear and thereby retain the buttons? Dekimasuよ! 06:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
33. Support If the only reason a user is opposed for, is a lack of activity recently... There's no reason for me to oppose. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 06:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
34. Support Cecropia was a good bureaucrat when he had the bit, lets give him it back Alex Bakharev 08:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
35. Strong Support I am really impressed. —Anas ^talk? 09:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
36. Support I've been persuaded. You were a 'crat before, and I don't think you made any really awful decisions. And more 'crats = more admins. But remember RfA is not a vote, and do close RfAs with the community's interest in mind. Also, perhaps you could look at changing usernames as well – although Secretlondon is doing a great job there, she could always do with some help I'm sure. Majorly (hot!) 09:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
37. Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
38. Mos def support. Phaedriel - 12:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
39. Support. I remember coming across the talk page of one user (since admined) on his first RFA and finding the most human and personalized message of regret from Cecropia informing the user that his candidacy had failed, one of only two such notices from a crat that spring to my mind. Cecropia was a pillar of the 'crat corp and I'm happy that he is recharged and willing to come back. (For those people who want more details about the resignation, The Signpost article gives some context.) - BanyanTree 12:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
40. You did a great job previously. Definitely yes. – Chacor 13:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
41. Support I think RFA will be much better off with Cecropia back as a b'crat. --W.marsh 13:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
42. Good to have you back. Kusma (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
43. Support without reservation. NoSeptember 16:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
44. Support Resumption of previous duties is fine, as per your answer to Tony's questions above. (aeropagitica) 17:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
45. Support - I see nothing wrong here, let them resumse their duties. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
46. Support - Has served as an excellent contributer, admin and bureaucrat. The answers to the questions are in my opinion excellent, and I see no reason to think that this user should not become a bureaucrat again. Camaron1 | Chris 20:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
47.  ⋐⋑ REDVEЯS 21:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
48. Support absolutely and without any doubts or hesitation. Sarah 23:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
49. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 01:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
50. Support John254 03:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
51. Support: I son't see any problems with this user. They seem very dedicated to the project even though their amount of edits have fallen recently. I don't see any reason not to support.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 04:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
52. Always good to have more people pushing buttons (moved from an opposition statement) gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 05:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
53. Weak Support It would be nice to see a little more usage of the admin tools as some go back too almost one year ago within the first few shown out of fifty, due to the fact you used to be a b'crat, I think you could be trusted. Good luck!The Sunshine Man 13:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
54. Support. More people to do the work is a good idea. semper fictilis 13:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
55. Support Per WJBscribe.--U. S. A. 14:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
56. Support, per above Kangie 15:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
57. Need more crats. Simple. No reason not to support. – Riana_ऋ 15:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
58. Support In large part due to the points raised in Durin's oppose below. This user understands RFA consensus, and the fine line between voting and discussion on RFA. I think that we can rely on to be conservative about major changes to the RFA process in the future. Also an extensive positive record as a bureaucrat in the past makes him a very safe bet.AKAF 17:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
59. Support Why not? --T_{Talk to me} 17:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
60. Cleared for bureaucratship I don't see why not. // Pilotguy radar contact 20:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
61. Support I see no reason to deny him the role inasmuch as he was a respected 'crat before, made a clean break for a time and now wants to return. JodyB _talk 20:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
62. Support. Zaxem 00:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
63. Support. I read his arguments, know that he has already been a Bureaucrat in the past, and only put his function down voluntarily for a year. No reason not to have him return as Bureaucrat. --Rabbeinu 03:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
64. Support — MichaelLinnear 03:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
65. Support. I point out that RFB is broken to the point where the onyl way to become a bureaucrat is to have already been one apprently. Oppose !votes don't come close to convincing me, so support.--Wizardman 03:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
66. Support, with a note that I feel insisting on putting someone who voluntarily relinquished their position through RfA/RfB/etc is a waste of everyone's time. Crecopia's clearly able to do the job, as he's done it before, he wasn't booted for lying opr stealing or molesting or whatever, so why bother with unnecessary bureaucracy? But that's the way it is, so yes, "support". Neil (►) 08:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
67. Support - I see no reason why a user who asked to loose his/her 'crat status, except due to a scandal, shouldn't return to such a stutus when he/she wants to. Od Mishehu 09:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
68. Support. Ceci n'est pas un vote. --Ligulem 09:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
69. Strong Support — I've said it before, and I'll say it again: we need more Bureaucrats; and this user seems perfect for the job ~ Anthony 11:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
70. Welcome back. El_C 11:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
71. Support --lightdarkness ^(talk) 14:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
72. Support Breblevdig mor fog! --Infrangible 18:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
73. Support in the strongest terms possible. Should be running the place. Grace Note 03:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
74. Support Welcome back, glad you are back, get back to work! :) Jmlk17 05:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
75. Support. I remain unconvinced by the reasons to oppose and my personal evaluation of the candidate's history and responses to the questions does not produce any concerns. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
76. Support (changed from oppose) - Although I'm not totally happy with this candidate's positions, the fact that most of the opposers are saying things which I strongly disagree with has made me change to Support. Unlike many candidates, it doesn't seem to me that Cecropia will abuse bureaucratship in the same way that many existing bureaucrats do, i.e. by making their own decision and disregarding votes (yes, votes. VOTES!) that they disagree with. So I reluctantly support. Walton ^{Need some help?} 10:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
77. Support per much of the above. I'm very comfortable with Cecropia.--Chaser - T 10:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
78. Support. If potential admins can learn on the job, I don't see why former bureaucrats can't relearn on the job. Cecropia was a good crat and I see no reason to oppose. Hiding Talk 12:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
79. Support - Cecropia did an excellent job as a bureaucrat, and there is no reason to think that won't be the case again. New bureaucrats are always welcome. Warofdreams talk 17:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
80. Strong, strong support Cecropia set the standard for excellence in b'crats. Thank heavens he's agreed to come back. He is one person with the universal respect required to get RfA (which gradually becoming broken by folks trying to "fix" it) back on track. Xoloz 17:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
81. Support - Sure. --Bhadani (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
82. Support Two thumbs way up. --Random ^{Say it here!} 19:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
83. Support as you've already demonstrated your ability to work as a bureaucrat. - auburnpilot talk 20:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
84. Support - but not without hesitations. I share the concerns of some that you may not be at this point totally plugged into the community's feelings about consensus, but defer to your promise to go slowly at first. Second, I'm pleased that we have an actual record to base this on (and indeed, it is the REASON this is a support !vote - because I had your record to go on. Any other candidate who came in with so few contributions to RFA in the last year would probably not get a support from me; obviously your record swayed me. Welcome back. Philippe 21:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
85. Strong Support Was a bureaucrat before, but retired voluntarilly; so... Why not continue with the good work now that activitey here on Wikipedia is back? ♠Tom@sBat 00:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
86. Support without hesitation. Has the temperament for the job. I trust his judgment. Guettarda 00:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
87. Oppose, we don't need more bureaucrats. All joking aside, Cecropia basically ran RFA unassisted for an extended period of time, and almost half of the admins in the English Wikipedia have a sysop bit due to him. (I don't think we ever gave him that "I promoted 500 admins and all I got was this lousy t-shirt" t-shirt...) I have no reservations here, as the arguments by the opposition don't convince me. Strong support. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
88. Support Got my approval to come back into it. Take it slow though. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
89. Support User has been a bureaucrat before, knows the process well, I hardly see any controversial issues. Real96 06:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
90. Support. Cecropia has an excellent record and I'm confident he will help get RfA back on track. ×Meegs 07:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
91. Support. Candidate is trustworthy and competent, as shown by his previous work as a bureaucrat. Throwawayhack 09:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
92. Scrupulously fair. Despite his truly ridiculous amount of activity on RFA, I cannot recall even one call with which I've disagreed. —Cryptic 10:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
93. Yes Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
94. Support No concerns.--Húsönd 14:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
95. Support. · jersyko talk 15:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
96. Support. PeaceNT 17:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
97. Support I don't have any concerns about Cecropia being a 'crat again. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
98. Support. I see nothing in Cecropia's history that leads me to believe he would do anything other than follow consensus, and I find the oppose argument unconvincing. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
99. Support Quite an established history and well-earned trust of the community. Still as qualified to perform as the day you stepped down. No convincing arguments for opposition. Support. Goodnightmush^Talk 02:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
100. Support I never even noticed that the user gave up the flag. In response to Iamunknown's concerns below, frankly I believe that the hypothetical, retrospectical questions prompted at Cecropia are not for answering, as the user said. Hindsight is 20/20, we're to judge a bureaucratic nominee on the ability to judge independently (with the caveat of Carnildo and Danny). Cercopia did a fine job (despite promoting these troublemakers). I whole-heartedly disagree with Durin's opposition. Teke 04:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
101. Strong support. Cecropia's trustworthy, mature, intelligent, willing to speak his mind when necessary, and an all-round good egg. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
102. Support. I was sorry to see one of our best and most dedicated bureaucrats resign the post, and am equally delighted to see this new request. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
103. Support - I personally think more good B's is good for WP, and I trust Cecropia's judgement and track record. Georgewilliamherbert 18:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
104. Support - I don't see any problem here. --WinHunter ^(talk) 21:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
105. Support - From what I have seen of your past and your answers to questions, you seem perfect for the job. I do have some issues with jumping back in right away - however since you are starting slow I don't believe there are any lasting issues here. TheFearow 22:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
106. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 00:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
107. Support The ability coupled with a desire to do lots of necessary work shouldn't be denied. --Fire Star 火星 03:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
108. Support--Duk 04:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
109. Support. I think we need more bureaucrats, I liked his answer to the question about Danny's RfA, and I didn't understand Durin's objections. EdJohnston 05:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
110. Support. Jonathunder 06:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
111. Support Having more bureaucrats will help Yonatan ^talk 13:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
112. Support Having considered the arguments presented against Cecropia, I don't find them strong enough for me to oppose. I trust that Cecropia has the common sense to brush up on what's been missed in absence so I don't see any problems. James086^{Talk | Email} 14:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
113. Support Tizio 15:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
114. Support Although I was reflexively disposed to support inasmuch as Cecropia seems exceedingly competent and trustworthy and inasmuch as there is quite probably a need for more bureaucrats (and as, in any case, there is, as with adminship, no harm in our bureaucratting every qualified individual who should come before us at RfB, irrespective of the number of bureaucrats we might have or the candidate's profession that he might not be the most active bureaucrat), I did find myself to share a few of the concerns initially raised by Walton infra, but any fears I had have been allayed; I think it is altogether clear that Cecropia properly understands bureaucratship to be ministerial in nature and appreciates that a bureaucrat ought never to substitute his subjective assessments for those of the community (as evidenced, e.g., in his analyses of the Krimpet and Danny RfAs), and I think his skill in discerning the consensus of the community is borne out by his concluding that the community at present do not demonstrably disfavor the long-standing (for the past year-plus, at least) conception of RfA as (roughly) a vote. Joe 16:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
115. Support User's history demonstrates judgement worthy of community trust. -- Avi 21:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
116. Seemingly overdue support. Absolutely no reason not to. --Deskana (AFK 47) 21:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose Sorry Cecropia, but I think this is the wrong time for an RfB. You've made barely 200 edits in the last six months, and I think, since you've been out of the community as a regular, you need more time to settle back in, and observe and take part in what goes on here nowadays. I think after a couple of months of active editing, especially round the RfA discussions you'll be fine. Majorly (hot!) 21:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The first point is fair enough. The second is ridiculous - RfA is a slimepit and I see no reason to insist that those who would clean it up must mud-wrestle first.--Doc^g 21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

His answer to question one indicates that he is currently uncertain as to how the community stands on agreement versus numbers and on "the kind of subjective judgment that the community is willing to grant bureaucrats." Where outside RfA do you propose an RfA closer (a primary role of a 'crat) to figure out what subjective judgement we currently are willing to give 'crats? Especially since his answers talk of admin promotions as the area of likely activity. GRBerry 22:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The whole community seems to be uncertain as to how the community stands on consensus versus numbers. That the candidate is uncertain how we stand on this issue is a reflection that he is more au courant with the current state of play than he may realize! (Or perhaps it's more a function of plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose.) Newyorkbrad 22:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If I understand the substance of GRBerry's comment, my response is that, if I am reinstated as a bcrat I will thoroughly study the current state of RfA in order to be able to perform the will of the community. When I was an active bcrat my sense was that, though trusted, the community wanted the bureaucrats to exercise their own discretion only when necessary. I would be surprised if the consensus of Wikipedians was to make bcrats "superusers," as it were, substituting their own judgment for the community's. -- Cecropia 22:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Changed to support, I've been persuaded. Majorly (hot!) 09:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Oppose: Even if I'm the only person opposing, this needs to be said and done. Cecropia, I have considerable respect for you but I am not comfortable with the prospect of you being a bureaucrat at this time. My reasons are this;
   • Meaning of consensus: First, and foremost, I do not feel comfortable with your concept of what consensus is. In your answer to question 6, you made a comment connecting polling with consensus. Consensus is not about polling. It just isn't a vote. THE chief problem that underlies just about every other problem we have at RfA is the lack of understanding of what consensus means. Your answers leave me considerably concerned that you would make this problem worse. Your answer to question 1 might strike some as proving otherwise, but I see it as a continuance of lack of understanding of consensus. Bureaucrats evaluate consensus, not establish it, and your comments about subjective judgement further convince me that you would make this problem worse. At a minimum, I would ask a potential bureaucrat not make a problem worse, and in the best of worlds help to make it better. Your assessment of the Krimpet RfA cinches this for me. Many people have regarded you as the strictest vote counting bureaucrat we ever had. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that your stance had changed, but your answers have left me completely unconvinced.
     • Also with respect, Durin, I believe that you are interpreting my brief answers to questions in a fashion that reflects an underlying concern about how I view the RfA process. I would ask you to consider the circumstances when I first became a bureaucrat. At that time there were (IIRC) something under 300 admins. Go back to 2004 and look at the RfA talk archives from about Archive 13 on, and you will see that there were constant discussions, which I fully participated in in the later archives, about the meaning of consensus. Bureaucracy was very new and I think some (including at least one b'crat) have lost sight of this. The reason I and a number of others became bureaucrats at the time was because the existing initital bureaucrats (most of whom are still at least technically 'crats) had begun to wander off from RfA. It came to the point where Angela was making most promotions, but she much else to do at Wikipedia. When she realized that promotions simply weren't being made in anything close to a timely fashion, she asked for others to step forward and stand for bureaucrat. I and others responded. Contrary to assertions I have seen on RfA talk, I did not come in and change the infant RfA process--there wasn't an established process that inspired confidence; I set out to try to determine, through discussions and polling, how others viewed consensus. I had no preconception; but I saw a process in which there was a lot of argumentation and not too much trust in the process. I believe I did much to establish that.
     • I have seen any number of reference here to the concept that RfA is in a state of flux. I guess I'm a little surprised (and a little hurt) that you assume that when I say that consensus is what the community says it means that I will determine what consensus is and will change the standard to what it was when last I was active. That is a strange reading both my words, I think, and of my history at Wikipedia.
   • Inexperience: "How could that be given your past experience?", some might ask. I recognize that you would go slowly at first. But, you've been completely disconnected from RfA for over a year now. Coming back here, and tossing your hat in the ring seemingly without any consideration of the current situation at RfA speaks to me that you have not evaluated yourself with regards to the current situation and whether you could contribute effectively. This is part of the reason I expect all bureaucrat candidates to be active at WT:RFA due to experience issues. RfA has changed significantly over the last year, and there have been some very raucous discussions regarding a whole slew of situations, including Carnildo, Ryulong, the Essjay bruhaha and clerking at WP:CHU, and recent format reform attempts. These situations created record amounts of discussion. You were present for none of this. Not knowing those situations and how they affected RfA and its climate leaves you in a position incapable of effectively working as a bureaucrat until you've relearned the ropes at a minimum, and preferably re-evaluated yourself with regards to community expectations and your ability to contribute positively. To give a real life analogy, Winston Churchill was the perfect PM for WWII. When he became PM after WWII, he was...less than desirable. His tool set was not well suited to being PM during the after war years. You may be entirely unsuited to what is expected of bureaucrats now. You have no way of knowing that without having spent time re-acquainting yourself with RfA. That's just RfA. There's been significant changes at bot approvals, heavy debates, etc. There's been major changes at WP:CHU as well. At this point, you're simply too inexperienced.
     • The Winston Churchill analogy is interesting and a little flattering, I suppose. I'd say my closest resemblance to Churchill is that I smoke a cigar; however I can't even claim that--I don't smoke a cigar or anything else. ;-) I understand that you are trying to say that someone who is "right" at one time is not "right" at another. OK, but I believe the comparison is inappropriate on a different level. Churchill was not a consensus builder; he was a person who had a certain experience and understanding of the nature of the world in his time. World War II was not run by consensus or by polling individual, or groups, or by creating focus groups to see if Hitler was still a problem. He didn't shift, the public shifted--when the public saw that Churchill was right about the threat of Hitler, he became a genius (so to speak), and when the war was successfully completed, that same public tired of him quickly. This is the fate of many politicians who are faced with war. But you see, I don't view RfA as a war: I have tried to be a stabilizing influence so that the community could determine what it felt consensus was without falling into excessive bickering with each other. The prime thing I would like to express in response to your observations, however, is that you seem to be convinced that my tenure as bureaucrat has been the expression of a rigid philosophy. You don't seem to feel that I approach issues with managerial skill and a desire to find out what the community wants. This is a true in the current climate as when I first became a 'crat. Mind you, I was never one of the bureaucrats who pushed the button (or not) and then, when questioned, said (in effect) "I'm a bureaucrat, and you're not. I had the power and I exercised it."
   • No new bureaucrats: Grandmasterka noted below that should you pass this RfB, this may be the last bureaucrat promotion for over a year. I concur with this assessment. You were the most active bureaucrat in the last many months of your previous tenure. If you become a bureaucrat again, it's likely that Grandmasterka's prediction will come true, as the old argument of "we don't need more bureaucrats" will rise yet again. This is not a reason to oppose by itself of course. However, combined with the first point I feel this is dangerous. Why? I believe RfA is actively causing harm to the project now, and it must...must...reform. I am very far from alone in this opinion. I believe you would be a hindrance to that reform, given my statements in the first point. With no new blood being able to come into the bureaucrat corps for a very long time should you become a bureaucrat yourself, I feel that you becoming a bureaucrat again will actively cause hindrance to reform efforts, and thus harm the project.
   • You were an effective bureaucrat during your prior tenure. But, the situation has dramatically changed. It is time for a new direction, a new leadership, and I do not feel you are the right choice for that role. I fully respect you and your contributions to the project, but can not endorse you at this time. With all respect, --Durin 13:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
     • You, and a few others, seem to have a vision of RfA which you believe I don't share. I don't know whether that is true or not. You "believe RfA is actively causing harm to the project now, and it must...must...reform." If this is so, I don't know why you believe I am part of the problem and not the solution. I've known you a long time, Durin; thank you for sharing your honest perceptions. -- Cecropia 14:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
   • You were an effective bureaucrat during your prior tenure. But, the situation has dramatically changed. It is time for a new direction, a new leadership, and I do not feel you are the right choice for that role. I fully respect you and your contributions to the project, but can not endorse you at this time. With all respect, --Durin 13:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
     • "Bureaucrats are put in place to exercise the will of the community. They are not leaders. The power to change RfA is not vested with them." —Durin, at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Mackensen. Chick Bowen 14:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
       • Which is not contrary to my position. You're interpreting my above words too literally. Thank you, --Durin 14:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
         • You summarized your position by saying "It is time for a new direction, a new leadership, and I do not feel you are the right choice for that role." how does that not contradict the quite Bowen brought up? If b'crats aren't leaders and are not to change RFA, it's odd that you oppose him for not being a new leader and not having a new direction for RFA. --W.marsh 14:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
           • As I stated, this is not contradictory with my earlier words. You are interpreting my use of the word "leadership" too literally. I do not mean it in the sense of carrying a rallying flag into a bold new future for RfA. That's what Mackensen was attempting, and that's part of the reason I opposed him. Bureaucrats are in a role position, and what they do affects us all. That is the form of leadership I am talking about. --Durin 14:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
             • Fair enough, I suppose, but I did want to remind you of your earlier words. What you are calling for here is a bureaucrat who is a full-fledged participant in the battles at WT:RFA but not aggressive in trying to shape them, who is committed to change but not determined to dictate it. That's a noble thing to be, I guess, but I can think of no one who qualifies. I supported both Mackensen and Cecropia, on the grounds that we're better off with somebody smart, regardless of his wikipolitical positions. Chick Bowen 16:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
             • I echo that sentiment. I'm not sure anyone will ever fit your description Durin. Of course it's your right to wait for your dream-candidate but you might be waiting for a while! Pascal.Tesson 16:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
               • What you are echoing is words put in my mouth. I'm sorry, but that is not what I said. --Durin 17:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
                 • How am I putting words in your mouth? I've suggested that you are using RFB as part of your campaign to change RFA. That is what you're doing, isn't it? And that means you can't support a candidate for bureaucrat unless he or she is on board with your specific recommendations for change at RFA, right? Chick Bowen 19:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

   Strong Oppose - I'm not happy with this candidate's positions, as per answers to the questions. RfA is a numerical vote. Admins should be promoted based on numerical consensus, i.e. having 70% support or higher. All the comments about no "personal favouritism" ought to be irrelevant - the bureaucrat should not make the "decision" on an RfA, just implement the result of the community vote. I don't understand why Wikipedia has this irrational aversion to voting. It's easy enough to spot sockpuppets and SPAs when they vote on things. But the views of all members of the community should count equally. Walton ^{Need some help?} 17:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

   Changed to support. Walton ^{Need some help?} 10:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

   • Boy that's interesting. I'm opposing because I believe Cecropia lacks a full understanding of consensus, and would tend towards strict voting too much. You're opposing because you think the opposite. *boggle* :) --Durin 17:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
     • Can't please all of the people all of the time, it seems. Now that's a really tough call for a bureaucrat. Do the contrary objections cancel each other out, or do they double? ;-) -- Cecropia 17:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
     • Durin, I am taking the liberty to post my response here to your concerns on my Talk Page. To keep the physical size of this RfB within reason, I would encourage all to click the link to see the entire discussion. -- Cecropia 17:29, 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)
   • Hehe, Walton, maybe you should write a bureaucrat bot :) It'd do the job just as well as you'd like. Majorly (hot!) 17:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
     • I don't know much about the technical side of things, and don't know if giving a bot the bureaucrat functions would be practical. But that would be a good idea in principle, yes, and would be far superior to the present system. The only thing we'd have to establish is a minimum suffrage requirement (say, 500 edits) to exclude sockpuppets and SPAs, and to ensure that all voters (yes, I'll say it again, voters) are experienced enough to understand what adminship is about. Walton ^{Need some help?} 18:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

   I think I've supported any and all bureaucrat button requests thus far, as I'm a fan of the logic that it's always nice to have extra clerks at the checkout counter. However, given the fellow's recent inactivity, I wanted to look into Cecropia's request a bit more. I posed a relatively straightforward optional question, and while I surely appreciate that he took valuable time out of his day to respond, I am a bit unsettled by the evasiveness or fence-sitting response, which is a quality I'm a bit concerned about in a prospective bureaucrat. Good luck on this endeavour Cecropia, and regardless of the outcome, I look forward to seeing more of you around the 'pedia. Cheers! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 17:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

   Please see my elaboration to your question 9 above. -- Cecropia 17:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks! I just saw it and followed up with you up there gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 17:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

   Comment - Another reason why I oppose is precisely that which is making some people support - the fact that Cecropia was a bureaucrat in the past. Lots of people are mentioning the fact that if this RfB succeeds, it's unlikely that any more RfBs will pass in the next year. This may sound childish, but shouldn't someone else get a turn? Rather than keeping the same small clique of users performing bureaucrat duties? Personally, I think the position of bureaucrat should be completely eliminated. But if we have to have them, we should spread the role around as many people as possible, for maximum fairness. Walton ^{Need some help?} 16:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

   I don't think the fact that we can't elect new bureacrats has much to do with whether Cecropia himself gets the job. There's a trend on Wikipedia that bureaucrats should have more of a say in whether to promote or not, rather than going "by the numbers", and with that comes increased expectations and requirements on people doing the job. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

   Well, I have a serious problem with the idea of bureaucrats having "more of a say in whether to promote or not". Isn't that essentially an authoritarian system? I'll say it again, we should promote by voting. Not !voting, actual voting. I've recently been hanging around on Spanish Wikipedia and English Wiktionary, and over there, they use voting for far more things than we do. So why is everyone so scared of voting? Walton ^{Need some help?} 15:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

   Withdrawn. Pending Based on the answer to my question, which certainly is optional, however I won't support unless it is answered, and unless I am satisfied with the answer to it. ++Lar: t/c 11:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC). Wikipedia needs more bureaucrats. Further, it needs more that are willing to come out and say so, that are willing to say "Hey community, you're wrong here" and make the case. Cecropia, you seem an honest and reliable sort but given that you asked who the stellar candidates were rather than already knowing, I'm not sure you are in tune with the bureaucrat problem, and given the way you have answered my question and several others, you seem like you're "playing not to lose" rather than taking stands. 'Crats need to honor consensus but that doesn't mean they have to be blown willy nilly, they can say what they think. Oppose per the above, and per Durin's extensive rationale. I still could be convinced otherwise, but if the community will only select one 'crat this year, I'd prefer one of the "absolutely stellar" candidates that already got shot down and that has new ideas and strong opinions to someone that already gave it a go. ++Lar: t/c 03:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

   I'm sorry that you feel you must oppose me but the stated terms of your opposition bother me. I am the only person standing for bureaucrat who has an extensive history of what I actually did as a bureaucrat. I stated at the outset that my history at Wikipedia is an open book that I fully embrace. I have written reams of opinions on adminship, on various candidates and on how I believe bureaucrats should comport themselves. You will not find hundreds or even dozens of expressions of opinion on candidates on RfA while their nominations were open during the time I was a bureaucrat because I felt I should avoid inserting myself in the process except when I felt I had an extremely important reason to do. At least one other bureaucrat directly opposed me on that and on the way I behaved as a bureaucrat, but it seems the community broadly supported me and my voluntarily standing for RfB and the community's reaction suggests they still do. However, you may not intend it but I feel that you are attacking my character when you imply that I am in the mold of being "blown willy nilly" and don't "say what I think" and "playing not to lose." That has never been who I am and my record at Wikipedia demonstrates that, I fully believe. In effect you are accusing me of either looking for an easy course or at least dissembling in order to be a bureaucrat again. Perhaps you could remember the Wikipedian concept of "Assuming Good Faith." The tension between "consensus" and "counting votes" has been going on from the beginning of the Bureaucracy, which I entered when the position was barely four months old. I know the passions and the arguments. I also know the discussion has reached a juncture where it would be helped by someone who is willing to listen to both sides and (if you will) try to help reach a consensus on consensus. You miss the entire point of my stated approach to a bureaucrat's role when you say that I had to ask who the "stellar candidates" were without actually knowing. A superlative like "stellar candidate" is an intensely subjective concept. Perhaps these were truly "stellar" people but evidently enough editors disagreed to deny them the position they sought. Are you or others suggesting the bureaucrats be empowered to substitute their judgment for the community's? If you feel that I must telegraph a policy stand so that Wikipedians will want to "vote" for me as they vote for a political candidate, then I suppose your oppose is appropriate. -- Cecropia 03:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

   I have no doubt that when consensus is clear, that you will follow it. But I, and other editors as evidenced by the questions about your thinking on RfAs that were controversial, want some insight into your thinking will go in cases where consensus is not clear. When asked for specific answers, you have said your previous record is an open book but not given specific diffs to illustrate similar cases in the past, nor have you answered the specific question, unless prodded. We need people to follow consensus, yes. But consensus means going along with things even if you disagree with them, and it's the disagreements I'm interested in. So I want to know what you think. I won't support candidates for RfA or RfB who in my judgement don't "get it", so I want to know more about you, about when and where you disagreed. 'Crats are thought leaders, like it or not. Please give specific answers to specific questions, Use diffs to the past if you like but do not just point generically to your past record. Pointing to your record has two flaws... one, it requires the reader to do a lot of work to answer a question, trying to find diffs that are germane. (You're the one standing for the position, you do the work to answer the question...) two, it requires the reader to try to interpret things to infer a position instead of you coming out and plainly saying what you think. I'd challenge you again... look at Krimpet's RfA for example, or Danny's, or Carnildo's, and actually tell us if in your judgement there was consensus, and why or why not, and *regardless of consensus*, what you yourself thought the right thing to do was and why. If you do, I won't think you're playing not to lose or dissembling. Also, in another question about 'crat discussion, you say (paraphrased) "if we had the luxury of 2 or 3 'crats", but when I asked a direct question, should we have more or not, you didn't answer it directly. I'll ask again, more directly: I strongly think the community consensus about the number of crats we need is wrong, and I'd like to see the community change their views on this enough to get significantly more 'crats appointed. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not? If you agree, what do you think you will do as a 'crat to work to convince the community to change consensus? And finally, I agree with Iamunknown, all comments should be evaluated to determine consensus, not just those that are neatly slotted in as votes, because consensus is not voting. ++Lar: t/c 12:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

   You bring up a lot of points, some of which I feel I have already addressed though you think not. Can you understand that there are some questions that can not be answered yes or no, at least in the theoretical? Do you understand that a simple answer to a hypothetical question can be fraught with subtexts? Do we need more bureaucrats? More bureaucrats to do what? To help with the dog work of making sure buttons are pushed (or not) on a timely basis? Yes. To acquire the flag and use their position to enhance their arguments about RfA but be casual about the work? No. To provide warm bodies in the hope that if we appoint enough the work will get done? No. Any more than you have five buses and ten bus drivers but only three buses drive out of the garage because most of the drivers only show up when they're in mood? What is the right number of drivers then? 20? 30? New bureaucrats who will work to provide a stable environments where the concept of what constitutes consensus is understood on the basis of what the community desires? Yes. New bureaucrats waving the red flag of revolution or the black flag of anarchy seeking to remake RfA to fit their theories. No. I know that doesn't answer all your concerns, but it's a start. -- Cecropia 19:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

   Answer question 8A please. Do the research into the situation, evaluate the discussion as it was at close time, imagine yourself as having had to decide, tell us your decision, and show your work. That would be a good start on understanding how you intend to act. As for whether we need more 'crats I still feel you have not answered clearly. Factor out the black, red, green, yellow, rainbow, etc. flags, which are a nice rhetorical device, but which do not help me understand your thinking, and just tell us whether you think those who say "we have enough crats" and reflexively oppose every candidacy are right or wrong. That admits of a simple, straightforward, non nuanced answer. ++Lar: t/c 04:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

   My dear Lar: I have tried to give you information in good faith; it is evident that nothing I would express quite meet your criteria. Most posters on this RfB seem to understand where I am coming from and I have spent a lot of time trying to address your concerns. That is all right, but I will have to tell you what I do not do. I do not jump through hoops. -- Cecropia 04:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

   I am sorry that you feel that repeatedly asking for a yes or no on a simple question is asking you to "jump through hoops". Your answer about Danny's RfA was exactly the sort of view into your thought processes I was looking for in that area and I thank you for it, it satisfied much of my concern. I'm still hopeful that you will consider answering my original question, though. Because if you won't, then it increases my fear that when we ask you to explain other things after you are a 'crat, it will be a rather drawn out process, and ultimately, we may not get clear answers or any at all. PS, as you point out, you could have well asked for your bit back and that would have been that, you would have had it back. Full marks for asking for the community to comment on it anyway. ++Lar: t/c 12:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

   Withdrawn. Off wiki discussion, and Cecropia's further elaboration of what he meant in his answer to my question have satisifed my concerns, and I no longer oppose. Nose counters may count this as a neutral if they wish to :). I am leaving this here rather than striking or removing as I do think these are things to keep in mind.++Lar: t/c 03:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

2. My previous comment below aside, I strongly oppose Cecopria's nomination to become a bureaucrat. His or her answer to Eagle101's questions is astounding: imagine! not considering comments made outside of "support" or "oppose"! I thought that RfA and RfB were attempts to measure consensus, not polls. --Iamunknown 18:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

   When a person places a comment outside of the (at present) usual categories of support or oppose, they are signaling a different and unclear expression of opinion. In my response I queried the reason why someone would place their comment separately from others' similar observations and then expect them to be treated in the identical spirit. I think you may be forcing my comment into a pigeonhole and broadening it to mischaracterize my position; you are, of course, entitled to support or oppose me or anyone else for any reason. -- Cecropia 18:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

   I would expand upon my comment and say that I do not think that any comment should be summarily discounted merely based upon what section the commentator puts it in. I firmly believe that RfA and RfB should work as consensus-building mechanisms (though I understand that they are currently not), and it is my opinion that discounting a comment based upon what section it is in is antithetical to consensus. If you believe, however, that I have mischaracterized your position, Cecropia, I would love to hear your side of the story. Your current comment does nothing to improve discussion, but instead accuses me based upon spurious grounds. --Iamunknown 19:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

   I was trying to express the concept that there are two phases on the road to closing a nomination. The first is the raw, bean-counting stage, in which we get a sense of how whether the community as a whole supports or opposes. If the raw balance of stated supports and opposes is 98-0 on the one hand, or 0-98 on the other hand, there is no need to go any further and consider the content of the remarks for purposes of closing the nomination only. If the raw sentiment requires analysis, than all comments are considered, no matter where they're placed. I don't believe, however, that any one has answered my question as to why someone would place a supportive or oppositional comment outside of the "support" and "oppose" sections. -- Cecropia 19:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

   • If the raw balance of stated supports and opposes is 98-0 on the one hand, or 0-98 on the other hand, there is no need to go any further and consider the content of the remarks - I disagree in theory. 98 supports not based in policy or sound interpretation of policy should not be counted; similarly, 98 opposes not based in policy or sound interpretation of policy should not be counted. This has to my knowledge, of course, never happened. But to summarily say that 98-0 or 0-98 is a definitive pass or fail is wrong.
   • I don't believe, however, that any one has answered my question as to why someone would place a supportive or oppositional comment outside of the "support" and "oppose" sections. - I shall answer it with my opinion. Neither Majorly nor I commented in the support or oppose section in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dark Dragon Flame, yet we endorsed what another supporter said. Durin also did not comment as "support" or "oppose" but commented in favour of Dark Dragon Flame on many different occasions; only two participants replied (one changed from oppose to neutral and the other did not change sections). How can consensus be determined if editors are unwilling to reply? or if editors are not aware that another editor has engaged them in discussion? Similarly, several editors did the same at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Krimpet. I cannot comment definitively on the motivation of these other editors, but I can comment that I imagine they acted as such because they wish to see RfA as a consensus-building mechanism and that their opinion is that the current RfA format is not such a mechanism. That is, at least, my opinion; I feel that such comments should indeed be considered, and I feel that discounting them is not an appropriate action. --Iamunknown 19:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

3. Sorry, but I oppose. Nothing heavy, but I don't thing we need more 'crats, also, more important, it's over a year since your involvement in RfAs, apart from five edit to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and one to Wikipedia:Bureaucrat. I know you were the most active 'crat, but one year passed. Unfortunately your recent involvement in the process is too low to allow me to support your. «Snowolf ^{How can I help?}» 22:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

   I can understand your second reason for opposing, but I do despair of the "we don't need more 'crats" argument. It's well over a year since anyone was given the bureaucrat flag, and in that time, backlogs - albeit still short ones - have tended to build up. Warofdreams talk 17:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

   Not to mention that we've lost a crat or two during that time as well . . . · jersyko talk 22:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

4. While I have a great deal of respect for Cecropia's body of experience, I am utterly dismayed at the inability to 'answer' clearly and succinctly, without excessive use of qualifiers and weasel words, many of the questions posed here . The last thing the project needs now is more ambiguity in bureaucrat decisions. -- nae'blis 19:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

   But my many decisions were not ambiguous. A bureaucrat either pushes the button to promote or removes, with or without extensive discussion. What "qualifiers" do you have in mind? Are we setting up a "did you stop beating your wife; answer yes or no scenario"? And "weasel words" is provocative. Show me the weasel words and then show me how they cover up my meaning. -- Cecropia 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

   Since you pride yourself on being straightforward, I will list the examples I see on this page: "I cannot do justice to these RfAs in which I did not participate", "They can be.", your entire answer to Q14, and "Can you understand that there are some questions that can not be answered yes or no, at least in the theoretical?". Furthermore, "I don't know that I would have failed your nomination based on the current concept of consensus" and "if I am reinstated as a bcrat I will thoroughly study the current state of RfA in order to be able to perform the will of the community" speak of an unwillingness to invest the time to get to know the present situation before you are given the keys to the job. Unless you're saying that it will take you longer than a week to close an RFA, I see no reason you could not have evaluated the scenarios posted above. That worries me, though I think you will be deliberate in action, I cannot yet trust it. Sorry. -- nae'blis 20:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

5. I oppose. Cecropia has seemed unwilling to answer questions ("jumping through hoops") and responded to criticisms from naeblis by seeming to want to fire back ("is provocative") at naeblis who is not the subject here. Cecropia also accused lamunknown. This seems not to recognise that some people favour quite a high level of scrutiny and also suggests that Cecropia can be a little hasty with his comments. Eiler7 19:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

   The "jumping through hoops" comment is directed at the fact that my answers seem not to satisfy a few editors who demand not only an answer, but a format for the answer. To demand a "simple yes or no" to a supposedly straightforward question begs the question that the question is really straightforward and capable of a simple yes or no. I did answr Lar's question about whether we "need" more bureaucrats but he wouldn't accept it. I will repeat in bulletin form:

   Do we need more bureaucrats? More bureaucrats to do what?

   • To help with the dog work of making sure buttons are pushed (or not) on a timely basis? Yes.
   • To acquire the flag and use their position to enhance their arguments about RfA but be casual about the work? No.
   • To provide warm bodies in the hope that if we appoint enough the work will get done? No. Any more than you have five buses and ten bus drivers but only three buses drive out of the garage because most of the drivers only show up when they're in mood? What is the right number of drivers then? 20? 30?
   • New bureaucrats who will work to provide a stable environments where the concept of what constitutes consensus is understood on the basis of what the community desires? Yes.
   • New bureaucrats waving the red flag of revolution or the black flag of anarchy seeking to remake RfA to fit their theories. No.

   That seems straightforward to me. Will any one of the editors who believe that the answer is a simple yes explain to me why they feel more bureaucrats are needed. (Lar did give a reason, but did not reveal what these new bureaucrats should do). Enlighten me. -- Cecropia 21:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

   This whole discussion has inspired me to write a new essay, Wikipedia:We need more bureaucreats. I have a copy in my userspace, so go ahead and vandalize edit it. Seriously, I fail to understand why there needs to be an arbitrary restriction on how many bureaucrats we have. For me, the burden of proof rests with those who wish to shut out qualified candidates for no reason at all. YechielMan 22:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

I'm disposed to support. But for those of us who don't remember you from the 'old days', I'd like you to tell us more about how you'd call things in the current climate. Please could you answer the questions - just a little even? --Doc^g 17:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC) satisfied.--Doc^g 21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to. I would beg your indulgence as I have a non-Wiki things to accomplish this afternoon (NY time). I feel a little sense of irony, since I wrote the original questions I would now answer. But, sauce for the goose... :) -- Cecropia 17:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral, pending answers. Majorly (hot!) 20:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Fence sitting with peanut gallery remarks He was formerly a 'crat. So we ought to be evaluating based on his activity as a 'crat, judged by whether he followed or violated the then existing community standards. Since I wasn't active then, to evaluate this I'd need to 1) figure out the history of the community RfA promotion standards and 2) then go through the RfAs he closed and see if those standards were applied. Step #1 is too much work for me, since I wasn't active when he was a 'crat. So I sit on the fence. However, I strongly encourage Cecropia to take the time to do that study before taking any RfA related 'crat actions. I'm not aware of significant controversy in bot flag setting standards or username changes, but I think it will take a good long mess of time to read the relevant recent discussions about RfA. I also think that the closing 'crat for this discussion should ignore any "we need more" or "we don't need more" opinions that have no other rationale. GRBerry 23:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral. The sentiment over RfA has changed somewhat, and I guess I would prefer someone who was less conventional, since we're probably not going to have another successful bureaucrat candidacy for over a year if this passes. (It sounds odd, I know. Cecropia set some of the trends that are present in the modern RfA process.) But I certainly can't oppose. Incidentally, check out Cecropia's first RfB... It really was a straight vote back then, much more than it is today. Grandmasterka 01:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Abstain. I have no comment whatsoever for this RfB. 141.158.54.152 17:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

   Not sure if there was much point in making that comment... Majorly (talk | meet) 18:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

   I also believe there is a policy that anons are not "allowed" to comment in the numbered Support/Oppose/Neutral sections, although they are encouraged to comment in the Discussion section. But it probably wouldn't be worth the effort to explain to this editor that he's not supposed to abstain....... Newyorkbrad 21:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

   Hmm, I can think of one reason (probably inadvertent): that the current design of this whole process is silly. I would like so much to get a discussion going, but as you can see above, Cecropia first commented unconstructively with indignantion to my oppose ("I think you may be forcing my comment into a pigeonhole and broadening it to mischaracterize my position" ahem, ad hominem, anyone? Why not just explain how I am pigeonholing his or her position?) and, after I asked that he or she merely tell me how he or she thinks I am pigeonholing his or her position, and responded, he or she hasn't even responded? How are we supposed to generate consensus if no one even responds? Or, if this is a vote, why do we comment? What the heck is going on? Is this a consensus-building mechanism or is it the polls? Sigh --Iamunknown 19:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

4. I can't oppose this otherwise everything people have been saying about RfB will be true, but I sympathise with some concerns expressed above. Namely, that getting a *straight answer* to questions has been an unnecessarily difficult task. – Steel 12:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Not able to support based on noms answer to Question 14 since I feel that RFA is not a vote and all information and opinions should be considered. Some users prefer not to use the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections because it is numbered and appears too much like a vote, I think. Not putting their comments in the designated area does not make their comment less valid. Please reconsider your stance, okay? Also, I strongly prefer 'crats to be patient and forthcoming with your answers to questions about promotions. Based on my observations on this RFB, you could do a little better in this regard. I'm not going to oppose because I hope you will learn from the comments on this RFB and perform your job well. Take care, FloNight 14:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

   I would like to address your concerns as they are similar to some others' that I think are misunderstandings. Please give me some time. Thanks. -- Cecropia 19:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)3

Comment

• I guess that my comments will echo GRBerry's remarks. I was neither active in the administrative side of Wikipedia when Cecropia was around nor particularly active in general, and I unfortunately cannot commit time to go back through log pages (no special pages, but the Wikipedia:Upload log and such) to evaluate whether or not I think that Cecopria should be a bureaucrat. That said, I am glad that this nomination has not taken the road of "We don't need more 'crats" which I have never understood. We do need more bureaucrats. And, even if we don't need more bureaucrats, there is no reason that I am aware of to not have more bureaucrats. That said, I would prefer a potential bureaucrat be more active; Cecropia has not been. I would prefer a potential bureaucrat actually answer the questions and not just (what appears to me) evade them. I would prefer a potential bureaucrat have a public presence on Wikipedia. Cecropia does not meet any of these qualifications. I do note comment in the "support", "oppose" or "neutral" sections because I think that it would be unfair of me to judge Cecropia without reviewing his or her edits and actions as both an administrator and bureaucrat. Though I wish that we had more bureaucrats, Cecropia does not seem to meet my superficial qualifications. --Iamunknown 03:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.