Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Endorsements/Cecropia

Cecropia
You may have your say here. ;-) Cheers -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 09:25, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Support

 * Support Ceropia has on occasions had to make judgement calls as a Bureaucrat. He always strikes me as fair and reasonable - qualities essential in an arbitrator. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 17:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 20:19, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. 172 23:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Cecropia has earned my endorsement.   – Quadell (talk) (help)   04:15, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * We strongly disagree on a lot of ideological issues, but I've grown to respect Cecropia for his approach to these things, and he'll have my vote. Ambi 05:15, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. El_C 17:52, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Strongly endorse. "Ceropia" is Greek and Latin for "fair minded and wise". :) Ceropia's personal integrity has never failed to impress and amaze me. func(talk) 20:39, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 19:57, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. A fair, respectful user with whom I often disagree. Cribcage 17:41, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Sjc 07:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Consensus-oriented, and very active Bureaucrat. --MPerel 22:38, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. For such contributions as this or this :-) --Rebroad 12:27, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. very good at keeping a level head during debates- has inspired me to do NPOV work --Blkshrt 18:01, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Stongly support. A model of level-headedness. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 16:10, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Good bureaucrat, mindful of consensus.  &mdash;Lowellian (talk)   10:29, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 11:04, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. JDG 06:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Oppose. The only people who use names like "fair" and "wise" are those who are not. CheeseDreams 02:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I imagine it is worth noting that this opposition by a user I have never had interaction with follows hard on my commenting on the user's improper drawing of an RfC on User:Theresa knott without showing that s/he made any effort to resolve the dispute first. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * No, actually it results from my coming to the election page via an entirely different route and noting people remarking on calling onesself "fair" and "wise". In the same way, people in personals write "good looking young healthy male" when in fact they are "88 year old fat ugly (for his age) only-just-male with chronic liver failure". Until you just pointed it out, I didn't actually notice you were the same user. CheeseDreams 23:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, I did not characterize myself as "fair" and "wise," one of the endorsees did, and I believe he was trying to be humorous. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 23:44, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * What the...??? CheeseDreams: I was the one who called Cecropia fair and wise, (and I wasn't being humorous, Cercropia :) ). If you have no actual and legitimate statement to make concerning this user, then I suggest you remove your "disendorsement". func(talk) 22:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * No, it remains. CheeseDreams 23:34, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Of course if you wont remove your disendorsement of Cercropia even after the reason you chose to disendorse has been explaned as nonvalid then people are bound to draw their own conculsions as to your real reason for disendorsing him. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I categorically deny that I have paid CheeseDreams to disendorse me. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:49, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Mildly oppose, just to show that Cecropia ain't no Mother Theresa. Cecropia can be fair, but sometimes needs to be beaten into it. In one case, it took Cecropia a long while to give up on using sysop privs to call a vote in which he participated. In another, Cecropia tried to decert a certified RfC, even lobbying one certifier to withdraw. And, curiously, in both cases Cecropia sided with the same POV. HistoryBuffEr 05:01, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)
 * Mildly respond, that no sysop privileges or powers were used in the issue at hand, so HistoryBuffEr can say he feels I acted wrongly, but not as a sysop. I removed the claim of certification because HistoryBuffEr, as complainant, had made no attempt to resolve the dispute with the editor he brought the RfC against, as required by the plainly posted rules. I advised him that he could rightly claim to be a certifier if he simply engaged the editor he was complaining of (and I suggested ways) but HistoryBuffEr felt he shouldn't have to do so. That was his right, but it disqualified him as a certifier.. Without his certification, there weren't two certifiers so the RfC was simply not certified. q.e.d. As to the lobbying a certifier, the other editor also did not seem to have properly certified, and I informed him of this and he responded. . My further conversations were a follow-up to his "blessing" that his cert be removed. and another's action in restoring it..
 * If I haven't lulled you to sleep, Buff, thanks for the opportunity to reminisce about old times. Thanks also for the nice things you said about me while "mildly" opposing me. As to characterizing me, one person did call me "fair" and "wise," which is a pleasing prospect, but I doubt anyone imagines me as Mother Theresa, a concept I find slightly flattering, not a little bit embarassing, and thoroughly inappropriate. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Cecropia for Prez, understood my humor. HistoryBuffEr 00:45, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
 * Yay! Maybe after the Ohio recount. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:15, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)