Misplaced Pages

User talk:Aitias/archive 10: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:Aitias Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:00, 2 August 2009 editAitias (talk | contribs)Rollbackers50,076 editsm moved User talk:Aitias to User talk:Aitias/archive 10: archiving user talk page← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:01, 2 August 2009 edit undoAitias (talk | contribs)Rollbackers50,076 editsm - 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{tmbox
== Re: Question ==
| image = ]

| text =
Sorry, in my opinion, we have enough clerks for now. ]] 01:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
This is an ''']''' of past discussions. '''Do not edit the contents of this page.''' If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the ].<!-- Template:Talkarchive -->

}}
:Okay then. :) Thanks! —&nbsp;]<span style="color: #999;">&nbsp;//&nbsp;</span>] 18:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

== Telepathy and war ==

Since you closed the debate as a delete, could you please delete the second page listed at ?— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 03:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

:{{Done}} by {{user|Papa November}}. —&nbsp;]<span style="color: #999;">&nbsp;//&nbsp;</span>] 18:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

==]==
Hi there, I was wondering if this page was restored after your close? The history doesn't mention any deletion review. ] (]) 17:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

:Actually, it appears that I've forgotten to delete the page after closing the discussion. {{Done}} now. Thanks for the reminder and sorry for any inconvenience caused. Best, —&nbsp;]<span style="color: #999;">&nbsp;//&nbsp;</span>] 18:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

::Ah! No problem, I've done that myself. ] (]) 19:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

== DRV ==

Hi Aitias. Sorry to bother you, but I'm a bit confused at your to overturn the closure at ]. Of course, I might be a bit biased since I participated in the discussion, but consensus seems to ''strongly'' endorse the closing admin's decision. Could you please clarify a bit? Cheers. –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 21:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

:Hi Julian. :) May I ask you whether you did read my ? I believe it describes the reasoning of my closure quite well. In case you did already read it and still have concerns, I'd of course be happy to answer any questions you may have; also, of course I'd be willing to clarify if you could explain on what aspect exactly. Best wishes, —&nbsp;]<span style="color: #999;">&nbsp;//&nbsp;</span>] 21:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
::Well, I did, and I understand most people agree that Xavexgoem's decision was not backed up by consensus; that said, most people also seemed to agree that it fell within the scope of admin discretion, hence my slight confusion. It's obviously not a big deal and definitely not worth making a fuss over, so I suppose I'll leave it at that. Regards, –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 23:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
:::I agree that it's obviously not worth having an argument; thus, let me offer this to you: If you want to do so, simply go ahead and revert my closure. :) I won't have any objections, even though I still believe that my decision was a good one. Best wishes, —&nbsp;]<span style="color: #999;">&nbsp;//&nbsp;</span>] 23:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
::::Nah, I trust your judgment here. –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 01:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

== U-Mos block ==

I am the person who filed the 3RR vio complaint. Even though I think is reverts were pretty egregious, he doesn't appear to have been blocked before, and 48 hours seems excessive. Not being an admin, I am unfamiliar if you are utilizing a formula to determine the length of the block? - ] ] 22:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

:Yes, you're right. I've tweaked the block duration. Best, —&nbsp;]<span style="color: #999;">&nbsp;//&nbsp;</span>] 22:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks. He isn't my favorite editor, but everyone deserves a second chance every once in a while. - ] ] 22:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
:::Yep, indeed. —&nbsp;]<span style="color: #999;">&nbsp;//&nbsp;</span>] 22:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

== Nikkimaria ==

Hi, I've commented on the unblock request by {{user|Nikkimaria}} with a recommendation to lift the block. Would you consider taking a look? Thanks, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

:I ''would'' have considered taking a look, though, the unblock request has already been granted without asking me first or waiting for a comment from me. Many thanks for your message anyway, —&nbsp;]<span style="color: #999;">&nbsp;//&nbsp;</span>] 20:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

== FYI... ==

<span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 08:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

:. Regards, —&nbsp;]<span style="color: #999;">&nbsp;//&nbsp;</span>] 12:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
:: IMO it is a bad move to increase the block for an editor venting and is against standard practice to increase blocks for this reason. <span style="border:1px solid green;padding:0px;">]</span> 12:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
:::As far as I know, personal attacks/incility are/is indeed a reason for ]. In case I am missing something, could you please point me to the relevant policy? Many thanks, —&nbsp;]<span style="color: #999;">&nbsp;//&nbsp;</span>] 12:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
:::: I have raised the issue <span style="border:1px solid green;padding:0px;">]</span> 12:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
::::: That's, of course, fine; though, could you please answer my question? Thanks, —&nbsp;]<span style="color: #999;">&nbsp;//&nbsp;</span>] 12:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::: The extension was against standing policy to allow at least moderate venting w/o further punishment and in all honesty how is a parting shot out of frustration in breach of ]. I also don't appreiate your threats of blocking me. <span style="border:1px solid green;padding:0px;">]</span> 12:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::: “''was against standing policy''” — please provide a link to this policy. Thanks. Also, if you restore personal attacks, you'll of course be blocked, it's simple as that. Regards, —&nbsp;]<span style="color: #999;">&nbsp;//&nbsp;</span>] 12:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::::I don't see a problem with Aitias' action here. Yes, there is something of a precedent for allowing users a bit of leeway if they're angry after being blocked - I think personally I might have just reverted and ignored this particular attack, and only extended the block if it continued. That said, it's ''not'' "standing policy" , and Aitias was absolutely within his rights to block talk-page editing due to abuse. I really do not think this was worth starting ANI drama over. ~ <font color="#228b22">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 13:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

*Aitias, I'd suggest just reducing the block to the original length. I would also point you to ], which should clear up a common misconception: that block notices must remain for the duration of the block. This is simply not true. I'm sure the folks warring with the user to restore the block notice contributed to his frustration. Block notices are meant to inform the blockee the reason for the block, not to be a scarlet letter. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 13:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

:While I'd like to thank you for your hint regarding the block notice blanking, I am not going to reduce the block. As far as I can see, it is supported and endorsed on ANI, with the only one objecting the block extension being you. Best, —&nbsp;]<span style="color: #999;">&nbsp;//&nbsp;</span>] 13:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

::Well, there's the filer, and there's someone who just commented. So I wouldn't count the chickens yet, but if that's the way you want to play it, so be it. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 13:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


*How do you justify Catterick for a week? The was done several hours before your reblock, and it wasn't even a "new" personal attack; rather, it was the restoring of past incivility on his own talk page. What does blocking for a week gain? I'm honestly surprised by this block. ] 00:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

:Hello Acalamari! The first thing this user did after their block had expired was to restore (''and'' to ) the personal attack they were just blocked for. The users insulted by the personal attack in question have to be protected from being insulted again (and again); thus the block. —&nbsp;]<span style="color: #999;">&nbsp;//&nbsp;</span>] 00:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
::I'm just amazed at some of the people who spend their time defending individuals who repeatedly and deliberately revert their talk page contain abuse towards other editors. This editor could have returned from their block and engaged in constructive editing. But no, they decided to repost abuse. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 00:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure the block will help in the long run, nor do I think it was necessary, but nevertheless, I shall not challenge this block, and I thank you, Aitias, for a calm and helpful response to my query. As for you, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, I object to your comment regarding users who supposedly spend their time defending rude editors: I, for one, have never interacted with Catterick and am not a "friend" of his, nor do "spend my time" defending abusive users (exactly how often do I ever appear on AN or AN/I? The vast majority of my recent edits go to articles). In fact, I wasn't even defending Catterick here, but merely asking Aitias for further rationale behind the block. I respectfully ask you to withdraw that comment. Thank you. ] 01:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
::::@Acalamari: You're very welcome. (If you have any other comments or concerns, please let me know.) @The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick: While I agree with your comment for the most part, I feel certain that it was not Acalamari's intention to defend the personal attacks. Rather, he was asking me to elaborate on my block rationale — that is, of course, perfectly fine and I do appreciate any comments and questions one might have about one of my (admin) actions. Best wishes, —&nbsp;]<span style="color: #999;">&nbsp;//&nbsp;</span>] 10:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

== WHOAAAA ==

So I was going to close this MFD discussion, right? And by the time I load the page it was ALREADY DONE by some cool dood by the name is Aitias. Fantastic work. &mdash;] (]) (]) 00:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

:Haha, thanks for the compliment! ;) —&nbsp;]<span style="color: #999;">&nbsp;//&nbsp;</span>] 01:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

== CU/OS elections: vote reasoning ==

===CU===
====Bjweeks====
'''Weak oppose''' – I do not feel sufficiently certain that bjweeks has the outstanding judgement required for a CheckUser. I would have supported if bjweeks had presented some impressive answers to my questions; however, unfortunately, I am not that impressed with his answers either. Sorry.

====Hersfold====
'''Support''' – Nothing worrying, seems like a trustworthy candidate.

====VirtualSteve====
'''Support''' – Looks like a trustworthy and qualified candidate.

====J.delanoy====
'''Oppose''' – I have no doubt that J.delanoy has the ''technical'' knowledge to use the CheckUser tool — though, I am simply not entirely convinced that he is considerate enough for CheckUsership. Likewise, I do not feel that he has the ''outstanding'' judgement required for a CheckUser. As such, I am very very sorry, but I have to oppose.
:Changing vote to '''weak support''' – While my above concerns do still stand, I do indeed trust J.delanoy — and that's the most important thing here. <small>(17:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC))</small>

====Tiptoety====
'''Strong support''' – Tiptoety is ''the'' candidate for CheckUsership — I can not imagine a better qualified candidate. I do trust Tiptoety and believe that he will do a great job as a CheckUser.

=== OS ===

====Avraham====
'''Support''' – No concerns; I do trust Avraham.

====Dweller====
'''Support''' – No concerns; Dweller has my complete confidence.

====Happy-melon====
'''Weak oppose''' – Given both Happy-melon's statement and their response to my question I fear that they are rather interested solely in the ''technical'' side of oversight. That said, I am not entirely convinced that Happy-melon has the outstanding judgement required for an oversighter. As such, I am sorry to oppose.
:Is the fact that you've posted these on a talk page an invitation to respond? If so, I would like to do so. ]‑] 09:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
::Actually, I have posted this here just for convenience as I did not deem it necessary to create an own subpage — to cut a long story short: You are nevertheless perfectly free to respond, as my votes are not yet hew in stone and I may still reconsider them. Best, —&nbsp;]<span style="color: #999;">&nbsp;//&nbsp;</span>] 15:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

:::Ok; you might want to be a bit careful to guard against linkrot when this page is archived, or the links to your rationales from the voting pages will be broken. You are right, to a certain extent: given my background, it is inevitable that I will indeed have a focus on the technical end of the operation. I see that as a strength, not a weakness, because Oversighters are not sherrifs: they are not trained up, given a badge and a gun and then sent out into the world to act totally independently. The Oversight group is, it seems, very tight-knit: from the analyses from the Audit Subcommittee we see that over half the discussion on oversight-l is 'internal', presumably comprising Oversighters asking for advice and assistance amongst themselves. With that level of integration, it's not necessary for everyone to be a specialist at everything; much ''more'' important is to ensure that within that group there are users with as wide a range of talents as possible; then everyone can share and contribute to a bigger pool of knowledge that can then be applied to whatever problem presents itself. That premise applies doubly to functionaries-l, to which all Oversighters and CheckUsers are expected to contribute; again I think my technical background would be a significant strength to add to that pot. I wouldn't describe myself as a 'standard' Oversighter, because I don't think there ''is'' a 'standard Oversighter'; the fact that they're all not cast out of the same mold is definitely a Good Thing. There are just users who have the inclination, the judgement, and the trust, to do Oversight in addition to whatever else they like to work on on Misplaced Pages. I hope that I can be considered one of those users. ]‑] 19:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

====hmwith====
'''Support''' – No concerns here; appears to be a trustworthy and qualified candidate.

====Nishkid64====
'''Support''' – I have no concerns that Nishkid64 will do nothing but a good job as an oversighter.

====Howcheng====
'''Oppose''' – I am neither really convinced that Howcheng has enough experience nor that he is qualified enough for Oversightship. Also, his reply to my question is not that convincing either. All in all, too many concerns. Sorry.

====Jennavecia====
'''Oppose''' – In my opinion, there are three main qualities, which are important for an Oversighter: integrity, sense of tact and trustworthiness. I for one am utterly convinced that Jennavecia possess none of them — as also evidenced by both my questions and her answers above. Thus, I firmly believe that she would be a net negative for the project as an Oversighter. I am sorry that I have to oppose based on these reasons.

====SoWhy====
'''Strongest possible support''' – Whenever I read comments from SoWhy, I am impressed by his good judgement, his reasonableness, his calmness, level-headedness and his prudence. I do trust SoWhy implicitly and I could not think of any person which is more suited for oversightship.

====Thatcher====
'''Strong support''' – I both do trust Thatcher and his judgement; additionally, I believe that he has an markedly high level of integrity, which is, of course, great for an oversighter.

====Keegan====
'''Support''' – Seems like a trustworthy and qualified candidate.

== Re:Signature ==

Hey Aitias :) Thanks for the notice. It seems that I pressed "<nowiki>~~~`</nowiki>" instead of the four tildes. Took my finger off the shift key a bit too early :P Thanks, ''']&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Century Gothic;color:#007BA7">]</span>''' at 01:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

:You're welcome. :) —&nbsp;]<span style="color: #999;">&nbsp;//&nbsp;</span>] 01:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

==Request==
I have a request for you to restore ]. By ]<br />
'''Please restore ].........'''

:Those articles were deleted as a result of the relevant deletion debates; thus I am not going to restore them. If you feel that I have interpreted the consensus incorrectly, you may go to ]. Regards, —&nbsp;]<span style="color: #999;">&nbsp;//&nbsp;</span>] 12:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

==]==

Could you summarise the arguments for deletion that lead you to conclude that deletion was the correct course of action, in particular which policies this project was in breach of? ]<span style="color:grey;">&amp;</span>] 01:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

:Given the fairly evident consensus in this discussion, I did not deem it necessary to provide a closing statement. Though, I am of course perfectly willing to do so; however that may take some time due to a lack of time. In case you are not willing to wait, let's say 2-3 days, I will have to ask you to go to ] instead. Thanks, —&nbsp;]<span style="color: #999;">&nbsp;//&nbsp;</span>] 12:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
::I'm happy to be patient on this. The vote result was clear, I just found the arguments for deletion very weak. ]<span style="color:grey;">&amp;</span>] 20:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

== ChildofMidnight block ==

As I said on ANI, I really think this was a bad block. If ChildofMidnight asks for an unblock with a promise to avoid the articles in question I'd probably grant it, though it would be better if you did it yourself if that's possible. I'm not sure if you are familiar with the backstory at the Obama articles, but as one of the admins who has helped monitor things over there I definitely am, and I find it odd that you ignored the view of the one admin who commented directly on the issue (namely me) and who thought a note to C of M was the right way to go. I don't think was all that great of a justification for a hair-trigger block that had already been objected to before the fact. That edit is a technical violation of his ban, yes, but he simply moved some text, and may have just needed a reminder that he was crossing the line by being at that article.

For the record I have had enormous problems with, and been vocal about, C of M's behavior in the past and am highly supportive of his topic ban. I just think a simple "watch it, you're breaking your restrictions here" on his talk page would have sufficed in terms of stopping this current violation, which is ultimately all we want to do. Your block seemed rather more punitive than preventive to me. --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 02:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
:Just an FYI that I've unblocked ChildofMidnight per the ANI discussion and, much more so, a promise for C of M on his user talk page to avoid the articles in question. Please see the ANI thread for continued discussion and my note about the unblock, or drop a note on my talk page if you have any issues. Also please note that I'm not one to hastily undo another admin's action (actually I'm not sure I've ever done it before), and while I disagreed with your block I did not think it was out of process per say and would not have unblocked simply because I felt like it. It just seemed unnecessary to let the block run its course when we had a pledge from the user to refrain from the offending behavior, accompanied with an at least somewhat credible explanation for how he ended up on those articles. I hope this rationale makes sense. --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 05:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

== Hello ==

Hi Aitias, I'm hoping that I can catch you while you're still online. It looks like I might be a little late, but I wanted to try. I was hoping you would reconsider your block of CoM. I think that under the circumstances, it would be a good thing to unblock, at least for the moment, and discuss the situation first. I believe there is enough "wiggle room" in the area of "are the articles directly related to Obama", at least at the time of article creation. I'll stay up for a bit longer, and hope we can talk about it. I won't unilaterally just unblock, but I was hoping we could discuss it. Thanks, — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 03:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

:Hey Ched. I'm sorry, but I have been offline until now. While your message is appreciated, discussion seems no longer necessary given that {{admin|Bigtimepeace}} has already unblocked the user in question. If you have any particular questions you would like to discuss, please let me know. Best, —&nbsp;]<span style="color: #999;">&nbsp;//&nbsp;</span>] 12:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

::Hey, new day, new projects to work on. I trust you know that I wasn't questioning anything you did, just following up on things as they progressed. Seems to have all played out at this point, so ... "onward and upward" I guess. ;-) — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 17:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

== Courtesy note ==

Here's to inform you about ]. I'm sorry it's come down to this again, Aitias. ] 16:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

==Motion on adminship==
I have posted a motion regarding your adminship here: ]. Please comment. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 23:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:01, 2 August 2009

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.