|
| This is Nathan's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 7 days  |
|
|
| O |
This user is currently online. |
Centralized discussion
- Village pumps
- policy
- tech
- proposals
- idea lab
- WMF
- misc
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
Template:Archive box collapsible
AutoAFD
I don't know that much about the script; I updated it for a new syntax for AfD pages I was implementing, and it worked then, but I haven't used it since and AfD has moved on some extent in the meantime. You might want to ask at the WP:US talkpage instead, or one of the other people who worked on the script. --ais523 16:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
RfB Report
An apology
I owe you an apology. Other things on my mind, forgetfulness, and the fact that the letter I sent to my childhood friend, who holds a chair in classical languages, still hasn't received an answer. I only remembered, indeed, your request when rereading my talkpage tonight, thinking to close it. I specialized in Greek, and hated Latin all through school, perhaps because I always instinctively preferred Hannibal, the Etruscans and Volsci to the glorious men whose imperial march to Roman glory our textbooks lauded (a prejudice that shows in my edits on some areas). I've sent out other queries, but in the meantime, you could mull this possibility: nomen proprium profiteri ad petitionem, prima specie, imperii cupiditatis indicium esse censeo. This underplays 'prima facie'. Perhaps one might use 'opinor' with a verb of semblance and subordinate construction to get the nuancing of the original more closely. I repeat, I am not a Latinist, and will get something more worthy of a classical version by hook or crook, if you have the patience. Perhaps your Latin is sufficiently strong to improve this suggestion. This is just an embarrassed interim idea. Regards as always Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Avruch. Thanks, but it's no way adequate, and I'm confident it can be greatly improved. A neighbour, a philosopher, is back from Germany, and though a specialist in Kant, had several decades ago a thorough classical education. He and I played around with it for a half an hour last night. He doesn't like 'indicium' (disclosure) and we both feel that the first suggestion I made, which I had from another philosopher who had it from a classicist, well, shonky. I've kept my own three versions on the back burner, since, until I got the classicist's version (more succinct), I tended to trust a professional. But putting 'puto' in the front of the phrase was obviously poor style, and it looked to both of us rather highschoolish, though coming from a local teacher of classics (it contained an obvious mistake to boot, wich I corrected before sending it to you). 'Nomen profiteri' is 'to put put one's own name down', but both he and I thought 'sese' 'proprium' more probable, but neither of us specialize in Latin. Well, in short, this looks like it's going to be a long gambit. I have just had a message from my old friend, in Athens, whom I originally asked and since he hasn't mentioned it, I'm mulling raising the issue once more with him. It's a touchy matter, I gather, so I'd better prod it back to him on tiptoes. So, don't cite it, don't use it, until I can get absolute confirmation on a version that Cicero's secretary wouldn't shudder at. Fitting that requirement will probably take some more months, but the game's on, and not only a sense of obligation is to be honoured, but the pleasure of a sophisticated, if trivial pursuit, to be enjoyed. It's one of the things I deeply admire in Jewish culture. A question like this (how in ancient Hebrew would you say...) would be answered with considerable precision and erudition by a 20 year old student within minutes. Best regards again, as I festino lente! Nishidani (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
My RFA has closed
My RFA that you weighed in on earlier has closed as no consensus to promote, at a final tally of 120/47/13. I thank you for your feedback and comments there, and I'm going to be considering all the various advice and comments presented. I might end up at RFA again some day, or not. If you see me there again in the future, perhaps you might consider a Support !vote. If not, not, and no hard feelings. The pen is still mightier than the mop! See you around, and thanks again. Lawrence § t/e 18:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The remedies decided by the Arbitration Committee, viewable here, instruct Betacommand with regards to the operation of BetacommandBot, including placement of notifications and civility in replying to concerns raised about its operation. Betacommand is urged to be significantly more responsive to good-faith questions from users whose images he tags and either to respond directly to such questions, and also to develop an "opt-out" list for BetacommandBot without imposing conditions on its use.
All editors are advised that periodic review of images and other media to ensure their compliance with the non-free content criteria may be necessary for policy, ethical, and sometimes legal reasons, and are invited to participate in policy discussions concerning this and related areas. Editors are cautioned not to be abusive toward or make personal attacks against participants, including bot operators, engaged in this work. The community is also urged to re-examine our policies and practices for reviewing, tagging, and where necessary deleting images in light of experience gained since the policies and practices were previously developed, including the disputes underlying this case. The Committee listed five specific points in the specific remedy that they believe any review should attempt to cover.
The Committee expects that the disputes and disruption underlying this case will cease as a result of this decision. In the event of non-compliance or a continued pattern of disputes, further review by the Committee may be sought after a reasonable time. In such a review, the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions including but not limited to the revocation of any user's privilege to use automated tools such as bots and scripts, revocation of other privileges, topic bans, civility restrictions, or any other remedies needed to end the disruption. However, please note that nothing in this paragraph restricts the authority of administrators to take appropriate action to deal with any disruptive incidents that may occur.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
help with an arbitration request
Hi Av - I wonder if you might have any time and energy available for a bit of help in making a request to the arbitration committee? - I'm not really sure how best to go about asking them to lift my restriction on editing BLPs, perhaps it's as easy as that - maybe just saying 'Could I have this restriction lifted to a simple 1RR restriction pending a review of the evidence supporting any restriction at all?' is enough? - I've actually considered the merit of asking a third party to relay my 'appeal' to arbcom, and would like to give it a go - if you're willing at all, of course! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind posting the request for appeal/clarification. You'd need to make a statement, of course, expressing your view of the previous case and its outcome as well as what restrictions you would find acceptable going forward and your intent towards BLPs in general (speaks to why you want the restrictions mitigated). If that isn't a problem, I could make the initial statement with the case for lessening the remedies on the RfAr page. Avruch 19:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- That would be wonderful! Thanks heaps - and I'll certainly make a short statement.... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I have failed the article after a brief review. I have left notes on its talk page. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Di Stefano
Can I email you on this please? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 07:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's not an easy task you suggest! I've spent some time digging through the talkpage and the endless sources off-site and at the PM RfArb. If I can weigh in with something useful, I will. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Multiple forums
Per this comment, I will like to know what are the "multiple forums"? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- WT:WEB is a good place to start. WT:N, WT:V, WT:RS, WP:VPP might work as well. Avruch 21:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Kumioko's RfA
I'm not going to argue with you there, but were you suggesting my oppose is not based on anything substantive? I'm not sure that's fair, I don't often vote in RfA's, and I always do my homework for them. I did review his contribs, actually spent a lot of time doing it. I commented that it is hard to know much of how he will act in tough situations. I was not happy (same with some other editor's) with how he handled the beginning of his RfA. The diff might be harmless, but at the same time is not something I like to see from someone who might be the next admin. The diff was one reason I gave for my oppose. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it may be an issue of my interpretation of your remarks - the issues you point out seem to be (i) the lack of project space contribs and (ii) the single diff, from which you appear to draw a lengthy and complex conclusion about his likely response to controversy/drama etc. and the potential for admin abuse. In your response to a comment, you further encapsulate your feeling by again referring to that single diff and your interpretation of it. I agree that behavior in an RfA can be telling, and not infrequently torpedoes a request that might otherwise succeed or fail by a slim margin. That one comment, though, which is not particularly problematic to my mind, doesn't seem like a sufficient reason to vote either way. I'm also curious that your response to the comment on your oppose raises the issue of Q1 and appears to agree with criticism of it - when your response to my comment in the discussion section indicates that you disagree with the criticism but think its nonetheless valid.
- "Some people think the answer doesn't show any real need for the tools. While I'm not sure why this too is a big issue by itself, some continue to interpret that as the candidate not truly understanding what adminship is about, which is certainly a valid interpretation. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)"
- "I provided one specific diff (the one that bothered me the most), and I haven't liked what I've seen in much of the this RfA, specifically in the candidate's responses to oppose votes, and also to question 1. I agree the RfA can be a very good indicator of future behavior. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)"
These two statements seem hard to reconcile. Avruch 17:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- I can reconcile them for you. I don't in fact judge much on a candidate's response of where or how much they will use the tools. However, if I personally judge the response to show a lack of understanding of adminship because of the way that it's worded, then I don't like it. A theoretical Q1 response of "I will rarely use admin tools" might be totally acceptable to me for the right user. In this case, I felt that Kumioko didn't even understand that some of the things he was listing had nothing to do with admin duties.
- A few more things. First, I quite appreciate your long and detailed response to me here. If anything, it will make me a better editor and certainly has already encouraged me to explain myself better. My two statements you quoted are admittedly confusing when put together.
- Second, I think that I am in a certain "school" of beliefs about admins, criteria, etc. It's probably stricter than most. I viewed Kumioko as a great editor etc... I just felt too many question marks were popping up as to what exactly he would do as an admin, how he would handle criticism, etc. Maybe I view no big deal as it not being a big deal to hold off on granting the mop to someone we(I?) are unsure about. I personally think, that if Kumioko wants to, he can without a doubt pass a second RfA in 3-6 months after he meets some of the criteria that myself and other editor's have. Thanks for your discussion here. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Zilla-speak
That question might be a bit of a sore point right now, you might want to look at User_talk:Bishzilla to see just how much that party's been hearing about this lately. And you did note how more than one person has indicated Bishzilla should be reprimanded for her speech patterns already. For what it's worth, I was the one, not her, who's mentioned talking to MONGO lately, and I only talk that way when I am seriously drunk. There may or may not be a point there regarding Bishzilla volunatily speaking correctly as a sign of respect, and I'm not sure I would disagree with that, but to say she should be admonished or reprimanded for doing so, as several people have done, might be going a wee bit too far, freedom of expression and all that. But I am fairly sure that point might be getting to be a bit of sore point right now. It look like ArbCom might take the case, and if that's the case they'll probably be in the best position to influence Bishzilla's speech patterns, if they choose to. But making huge hulking monsters with really bad breath angry never struck me as being a really good idea. ;) John Carter (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sure - I'd hope Bish would volunteer to speak normally, at least in some areas (or use Bishonen rather than Bishzilla) as a sign of respect for community processes that are serious rather than light hearted. It may also be that she specifically intends not to demonstrate that respect, given her history, and I don't know enough about that to know whether she would be justified. In any case, I wouldn't advocate for any sort of punishment or formal reprimand. I actually hadn't seen her talkpage or that others had admonished her, it had just occurred to me once or twice over the past few days while reading through the case. Avruch 21:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- The one thing I don't think some people may have considered, and I'm not sure how to phrase this without maybe ticking some people off, is that she might be thinking that exercising freedom of expression is a way to demonstrate respect for those who have died to preserve that right. I can't be sure about that in this case, but I have heard the idea mentioned before by others elsewhere. I can't criticize anyone who thinks that way, as it is a form of demonstration of respect, even if it does strike a lot of others as the exact opposite of what the individual him or her-self is intending. John Carter (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose that is a possibility, given the relation of the subject matter to September 11th... It seems like a bit of a stretch to me, though, considering she hasn't deviated from the Zilla-speak on that account since it was created (that I've seen). I can't help but point out, too (and this is because I'm a bit crazy, and not because it is totally on point here), that freedom of speech (for Americans, at least) is a right to be free from most limitations imposed by the government. Employers and private forums (such as Misplaced Pages) are free to limit speech in any way they like. At any rate - I appreciate that you let me know the conversation was ongoing elsewhere. I imagine it will be resolved one way or another sometime before the close of the case, hopefully voluntarily and without ill will on any side. Avruch 21:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry
Hi, Avruch. I think I may have implied you kowtow to power, in my last post on FT2's page. I'm sorry I did. It's not what I believe, but I posted in anger. I've come to the realization that most people simply don't have an eye for FT2's bullying. That's odd to me, but there you go. I could send you a list of his bullying manoeuvres—if you're interested—but I'd frankly rather not waste time on typing it up if you're not, so here's one of many test cases: I acknowledge very clearly that I misread the log timestamps: "About the timestamps, I did indeed make a stupid mistake, sorry: these are minutes, not seconds." And in his next post FT2 demands I acknowledge it again: "Do you now agree the log shows that as being the timescale involved?". If that's not bullying in your book, then, well, I certainly won't waste both our times by continuing to wave and point. Bishonen | talk 11:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC).
|
