I am placing some of my previous writings that I feel are superseded, unimportant in current context, or just plain moldy, in /Cecropia rants and mouldy fluff archive 1 in the interests of transparency, rather than simply delete them.
My long Wikibreak
Those who know how prolific I was "Back in the Day" may wonder what happened to me. Back in 2004, Jimbo had recently expressed a desire to have a class of users who could handle the administrative end of overseeing Requests for Adminship (then often inaccurately called "sysops" and actually "flipping the switch" to create a user as an Admin. The first Bureaucrats were appointed but that chore too was became a poll of the community. So I was in the early class of Elected rather than Appointed Bureaucrats,
My production was driven by my love of the encyclopedia, my joy of contribution, the feeling I was doing something important, and my engagement with many other Wikipedians.
At that Wikipedia felt very much like a project on training wheels, and it had yet to gain respect as a source. Students dared not quote Wikipedia as a source.
I had the time to do extensive work in the article space, as well as engaging the community as an Admin and a 'Crat. Part of that was because I had a going business as a Data Industry Consultant. The industry made a number of changes and gradually I was forced into semi-retirement (euphemism for underemployed/unemployed). By 2008 things became harder as I sought other work and employment If you actually believe there are laws to prevent employment discrimination against people over 40 (U.S.), try finding work in an industry, especially a tech industry, when you are 62. There are many ways to avoid hiring an older person without triggering the law. Perhaps I'll write an essay one day, but not now. Suffice to say I found a job (at much less pay) that offered medical and other benefits to sustain my family. The person who hired me overlooked the common fear that I would only be there a few years. Upshot: I've been there almost 15 years now, working full time.
Still Around
Still flapping around; these newfangled Compact Fluorescents are a little less dangerous than the old Edison bulbs. -- Cheers! Cecropia (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I am not going to make a Mark Twain-esque comment. I am glad that (some) Wikipedians care enough to list me as a Missing Wikipedian, but I'm still around and even hoping to get back in the game before too very long. Moths are reputed to have a short lifespan, but not this one. Cheers, Cecropia (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I am the same old Cecropia, but currently still engaged in personal stuff that needs attention, as well as my vocations, which I find rewarding as well as necessary, eating-wise.
I am delighted the way in which Wikipedia is evolving into a real encyclpedia of depth and diversity, but I still wouldn't accept it as a primary source. ;-) Cecropia (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Just to update: Hello to all my Wikifriends, including those I haven't met yet. I'm kind of sad I haven't had the time to participate as I'd like to in Wikipedia in what has obviously been an exciting and productive two years. It's my desire to return when circumstances permit to resume contributing, admining, and bureaucraticing. Cheers! Cecropia (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikibreak
I am on extended Wikibreak, doing real life stuff that requires attention. I promise to have more of a presence when I'm able. Cheers, Cecropia (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I am still up to my proboscis in "stuff," but I hope to gradually get my wings wetter in Wikipedia with my Wikifriends. -- Cecropia (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Getting a bit more active this week. Gad, my user page is going to start looking like twitter. - Cecropia (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Hope
Someone once said that Man can live without anything but hope. I got to thinking about how I was in the stage of life where your great hopes have either been fulfilled or else withered. I still have hopes now, but they are much more modest. I am not nearly dead yet, and I may yet accomplish some of the unfulfilled dreams of my life; I still have a chance to "make a difference in the world." But if the adage about man not being able to live without hope is true, what sustains my life? Are my diminished hopes reflective of a diminished life?
I think of my children. Of my children's friends. The hope of youth. The world wide open. Their happy laughter. Even their frettings about life and love and the future; their fear of disappointments are evidence of hope. No hope; no disappointment.
Suddenly I understand why we have children. Their hope is my hope. The hope of their generation is my hope also. With children the old are directed outward instead of inward. Embracing children: my own; of others; of people I will never see or meet, means that the world does not end when I end. Their hope lives on, and in turn is passed on, to the end of time.
Admin advice: Page Protection and Unprotection
You'll get a different answer from different admins. Wikipolicy is that page protection is bad, so that pages should be protected only when absolutely necessary (to stop immediate vandalism or a major revert war) and/or when requested to do so by editors on both sides of a disagreement in an article who want a "time out" to work out differences.
Unprotection is even more of an art, much more so than bureaucracy, which is pretty dull except when there is a heated disagreement. My opinion is:
- If the article was protected because of constant vandalism, try unprotecting after 24 hours, but be ready to reprotect for another 24 hours if it resumes.
- If unprotection is requested by one of the editors on an article after a content dispute, see what the requester's reasoning is. If the request is from only one of the editors, ask (on the article's talk page) whether it is generally agreed the page should be unprotected.
- If unprotection hasn't been requested but you see there has been no discussion for a week or so, propose unprotection on the talk page of the article. Say "without objection, I intend to unprotect this article in (whenever, "soon," 6 hours, 12 hours, 24 hours) and then do it if there's no flak.
IMO, you will rarely go wrong as an admin if, before you take a possibly disputed action, you are confident you can defend it as though you were actually being paid to do this. ;-)
Admin advice: Threatening a Block
The question was raised: If an admin tells an editor that he must stop a certain behavior or be blocked from editing, and the editor does not stop the behavior, must the admin block him or her?
- First, do not threaten a block unless you are confident that the behavior is worthy of a block.
- Once you are determined that a block is appropriate, I would first tell the user that he is subject to a block: i.e., "Please do not vandalize Wikipedia. Persistent vandalism may cause you to be blocked from editing."
- Once you have given the first warning (or if another admin has already given a warning) then it is appropriate to be more firm in your wording: "Please stop vandalizing Wikipedia. If you persist, you will be blocked."
- Now to the answer the question of whether you must block after issuing the second warning and observing (after a short time to reasonably believe that the offender has received the second warning) that the behavior continues, you must block. If you don't, then there is no point in making the threat in the first place.
- Caveat: Of course, if you encounter someone who is actively engaged in rampant vandalism, you may have no choice but to block immediately, and then inform the user why it was done.