User talk:Rezyk/Archive 2

My RfA

I think you've got one of the best reasons for any notion on there so far. I don't know what consensus is. I've made a series of guesses and they've been wrong so far. I'm now toying with the conclusion that there is no consensus about the sorts of issues I've been involved in -- I see an unfortunate split between the "discretionary admins" camp and the "nondiscretionary admins" camp.

What do you suggest sysops do in this situation? There's no consensus, so the "uphold consensus" bit of sysop policy doesn't help. Half of the people around here suggest that the word of the policy is less important than the spirit of it, passed through a discretionary filter, so even "rigorously enforce policy" is out -- and even if it weren't, there's no policy that says when it's okay to block somebody, nor is there one that prohibits blocking for issues that aren't specifically covered by policy.

At this point, I'm merely following my own judgment and hoping to convince the community while doing so that I'm right. If you have any advice, I'd be more than happy to hear it.

—Tanaric 07:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

My general suggestion, depending on the issue, is:

• If just considering that specific incident, mediate with more discussion.
• For a specific problematic regular-user behavior continuing despite disagreement, consider getting a consensus against the sort of behavior, and/or jump to arbitration if it's that disruptive.
• For the question of when-to-allow-yourself-to-block, stick to that which you reasonably believe would be supported by consensus if the specific case was discussed, even if not something explicitly covered in policy (such as vandalism). Seems like that's what you did in this case (relying on a belief about an indirect consensus), but of course be open to having your belief questioned and your mind changed about what the consensus is (which I guess you also did).
• To address the lack of clarity about discretion/limits and trying to mend the split in camps, try to help develop a general consensus with discussion about an existing or new policy change proposal that addresses it.
• If opposed to management by consensus, consider developing/proposing a replacement ideal, such as a straightforward dictatorship or representative democracy, and getting the community to discuss it.
• If any of the above seems unreasonable, help me to understand that.

--Rezyk 12:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rezyk. Your input is some of the most valuable on the wiki, and I really appreciate your taking time to discuss this issue. —Tanaric 03:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Please

Could you have a look at Template talk:NPC infobox#Replacement NPC infobox before implementing your own system? Backsword 00:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC) (Added: On dwarves: I belive Andy said so. Vauge memory of testing it too. Nothing more. Backsword 00:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC))

I would say: too late xD poke | talk 00:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a particular change I made that conflicts with some part of that plan? If anything, I'd think my changes would overall make the transition smoother. --Rezyk 00:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It makes it harder to change things with a bot, since they're no longer systematic. Also, need a clean value in the infobox for all values since they are used for autocat (and possibly DPL in the future). Backsword 00:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

An additional parameter (which was not used before) does not make it more complicated for a bot.. poke | talk 00:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh...I originally stopped crusading against mass auto-categorization just because we didn't yet have the bot resources to mass-adjust categories in its stead. To now be stifled because of both is a bit frustrating. =) Auto-categorization, ease of botting, and potential DPL use are 3 utilities that should be trampled over if/when ever they stand in the way of having any users "just fix it". IMO, auto-cats already cause more trouble/complication than they're worth..

Would there still be any problem if I kept to clean values (bah!) and try to stick to systematizing one category tree at a time?

--Rezyk 01:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The job queue length is 5,343. Thought there had been time enough for anyone who liked to comment. Sure there will be some things needing fixing. But in general, why do do this wiki on computers instead of on abaci? Automatisation is there to save human labour. Backsword 02:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not about avoiding automation, but complexity. Given the rate and style of how these sorts of categorizations would change, and weighing against the differences in wikicode, it's better to rely on bot jobs if necessary rather than runtime parserfunction code-logic. It's overall less effort and simpler code, and we also end up maintaining more inherent flexibility (for cases such as Markis' affiliation, or if we want to subdivide an automated category). --Rezyk 03:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I see it another way. Using bots for everything only shifts things to the botrunners. Those still take code. This just makes things less 'wiki' by reducing the number of people able to see and deal with it. Backsword 04:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That's why I mentioned the "rate and style" of these changes. If they were a regular task, then I'd see things more your way. But these categorizations will never really sweepingly change (only if we, say, radically alter our category naming scheme). They're more or less a one-time task that's easy enough to finish up manually. After that, the only real labor I see it automating away is category-tagging for new pages, which is already minor, especially considering that most new pages would be started through a copy-paste. --Rezyk 04:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

luxons vs luxon

just noticed your updating the affiliation of everything, shouldn't the Luxons however be showing their affiliation as "Luxon" and not "Luxons"? Its a minor grammatical issue but i still think it sounds better as "Luxon", as it follows the formatting you've been using for this project thus far. -- Salome 19:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, in terms of just naming the affiliation group, I think it could go either way (and I even originally started applying the equivalent singular style myself). But the issue is that it's tied to the category name too, which is already properly "Category:Luxons" rather than "Category:Luxon". Someone would need to fix that first. --Rezyk 19:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Pattern-wise, I'd also be slightly inclined to favor Luxons over Luxon now...my logic being that affiliation group names so far grammatically fit into one of:

• "This NPC is affiliated with the <affiliation name>."
• "This NPC is affiliated with <affiliation name>."

--Rezyk 19:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm.

Ever thought about requesting a bot for your edits? ;) You could easily create a list of articles you want to be edited and it would be done in some minutes. poke | talk 21:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to prefer sticking to manual for most cases, but I guess I should try using them for some of the bigger tasks.. --Rezyk 21:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's just funny to see you editing all those pages ^^ But feel free to do it on your own :D poke | talk 22:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Gave it a shot. =) Let me know if that is a good format for the list of pages to target. --Rezyk 22:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was good, but you forgot 3 npcs ;) I did them as well. poke | talk 16:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Darn quote-names. Thanks! --Rezyk 17:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrat election

I nominated you for the election and hope you will decide to run. --Xeeron 11:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Consider reconsidering running for bureaucrat. Dirigible makes a very good point that you quite nicely counterbalance Aiiane and I. Others can do this as well, but you're at the top of my "wiki people I respect" list -- honestly, you're the best person to have on board to ensure I don't do something overwhelmingly stupid. —Tanaric 04:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess you noticed, but just to make sure: Since we changed the election format to be for 2 seats all candidates can/could be renominated (and you were). --Xeeron 09:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you further explain your comment on Shadowphoenix's page?

I'd appreciate it. I'd already apologized for my coarseness, but I don't believe my initial post on her talk page was inappropriate. —Tanaric 05:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Strike that, don't bother. I have better things to do with my time. —Tanaric 05:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC

In the midst of writing it. You and your timing again. Backsword 16:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

=) --Rezyk 16:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

List

I realise that a list is not functionally identical with regard to future inclusions, but it seem that is just better; it allows the flexibility to add or not as seen fit. I hope you don't see it as an attempt to change the meaning, thus.

The reason was that there clearly was some misunderstandings as to what was proposed. It's fully possible that I'm the one misunderstanding, which would explain some things, but your comments have made mee think otherwise. This should at least be clear. Backsword 09:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Added:Per Aiiane's talk, I'm fine with the current version. If you are too (and no one else objects), please move it to accepted. Backsword 10:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Too annoyed to comment. Please go get a consensus despite me, but make sure it's clear and follows the proper process. --Rezyk 09:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please explain, Rezyk. Without details on what you're annoyed with and why it's difficult to address that. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 15:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

MW 1.12 parser

Hi Rezyk, as I read your name on the DPL pages and you seem to be involved with some fixes within the DPL extension for the new MediaWiki 1.12+ parser, I would like you to comment on this section on my talk page about a coming MW update. Thanks :) poke | talk 22:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Redundant image

Would you mind taking a look at the discussion at Template talk:Redundant image? Thanks. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)