Jump to content

User talk:Timtrent: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Margxx (talk | contribs)
Line 66: Line 66:


:We should allow another reviewer to take a look. It is rare indeed that I review a draft more than once. Different sets of eyes serve you better. 🇺🇦&nbsp;[[User:Timtrent|<span style="color:#800">Fiddle</span><sup><small>Timtrent</small></sup>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Timtrent|<span style="color:#070">Faddle</span><sup><small>Talk&nbsp;to&nbsp;me</small></sup>]]&nbsp;🇺🇦 17:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
:We should allow another reviewer to take a look. It is rare indeed that I review a draft more than once. Different sets of eyes serve you better. 🇺🇦&nbsp;[[User:Timtrent|<span style="color:#800">Fiddle</span><sup><small>Timtrent</small></sup>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Timtrent|<span style="color:#070">Faddle</span><sup><small>Talk&nbsp;to&nbsp;me</small></sup>]]&nbsp;🇺🇦 17:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

::I understand. Should I leave a comment somewhere to explain that I've made these changes? Thanks again for your time. [[User:Margxx|Margxx]] ([[User talk:Margxx|talk]]) 21:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:10, 16 February 2023

Click here to leave a new message, LINK to any article you want me to look at
And sign your posts using ~~~~.
I may not bother with posts where articles are not linked and posts are not signed.
I may just delete them and ignore them and you.
I do not review drafts on request, nor, normally, do I review a draft more than once, so please do not ask
If you want me to do something for you, make it easy for me, please.
This is the home account for Fiddle Faddle, which is both my nickname and my alternate account.
When you begin a new message section here, I will respond to it here. When I leave message on your Talk page, I will watch your page for your response. This maintains discussion threads and continuity. See Help:Talk page#How to keep a two-way conversation readable. If you want to use {{Talkback}} or {{ping}} to alert me about messages elsewhere, please feel free to do so.
It is 3:08 PM where this user lives. If it's the middle of the night or during the working day they may well not be online. For accurate time please purge the page

I do not remove personal attacks directed at me from this page. If you spot any, please do not remove them, even if vile, as they speak more against the attacker than against me.

In the event that what you seek is not here then it is archived (0.9 probability). While you are welcome to potter through the archives the meaning of life is not there.

Audit of ArbCom Review

You made a statement urging ArbCom to accept a case following up on the G&K paper, and also added that there should be an external audit, and said that the WMF should pay the cost of the audit. On the one hand, I mostly agree. However, on the other hand, I will ask whether you are aware of any firm that provides the type of audit that you are asking for. An audit, when not further specified, usually refers to a financial audit by chartered accountants. (I think that they are called chartered accountants in Great Britain. They are called Certified Public Accountants in the United States.) I assume that you are not referring to a financial audit. I have heard of business process audits, which are a little closer to what you are referring to, but I do not know anything about the firms that conduct them. Do you have a more specific idea as to what sort of external audit there should be? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon Research firms and external consultancies can and will provide such audits. Some may also be accountancy firms, but it is not a financial audit I recommend.
Before I retired I used to provide Data Privacy audits as a consultant, and process audits are available, and relative easy to find. I've been out of the workplace for a lomg while now, and woudl have been able to use my network of contacts got identify one previously. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon A place to look might be Gartner. While they made their name as an IT consultancy they also have consultants well able to handle process, or did in 2003 when I last worked there. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF hired an external expert to prepare m:Croatian Wikipedia Disinformation Assessment-2021, but I'm not sure who it was. Levivich (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich This is, in broad terms, what I am suggesting. Arbcom has many members with many virtues. Some of the team are doubtless highly experienced, but it is happenstance and an election that has brought the team together. There is a point beyond which WMF needs to grasp the nettle and offer Arbcom heavyweight support. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, though I doubt the WMF will do anything (even pay for a supporting expert) unless Arbcom asks them to, as the WMF probably doesn't want to intrude upon local governance. On the other hand, I bet they'd pay for it if asked (it would be relatively inexpensive compared to their overall budget). Levivich (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich I know that, were I on Arbcom, I would both vote to accept the case and also know I was out of my depth. Knowing our limitations is a scarce skill. I would work with my fellow committee members to create consensus for a formal request to WMF for help.
Local governance notwithstanding, were I a WMF exec I woudl be asking Arbcom what support they felt they required in this case. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same here, and I'd bet the WMF has already asked (I hope, anyway). Levivich (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich I intend to trust them. I have made the suggestion in plain sight. If anyone chooses to support the suggestion that is fine and if anyone chooses to oppose it that is also fine. It might, however, be useful for it to be discussed for or against. For my part I have done in as few words as possible there, both disqualified myself from further activity in the area (I really cannot work there, the topic makes me physically unwell) and made the suggestion. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One More Thing

You wrote: "While you are welcome to potter through the archives the meaning of life is not there." That is true, but I was advised that looking for the meaning of life is a category error. Life is not a symbol or set of symbols, and meaning is the interpretation of symbols. Life is a process, and it may or may not have a purpose, but to ask for its meaning is what philosophers call a category error. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon I always thought the answer to the meaning of life, the universe and everything was 42! I was, however, mistaken 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HB Antwerp draft

Hi Timtrent, my name is Margaux, I work for HB Antwerp and submitted the draft you reviewed earlier today. Thank you for taking the time, and for your detailed feedback. I've made a few changes in an effort to address your points, and would greatly appreciate it if you could take another look and let me know if you see any remaining issues? I'd be more than happy to make additional improvements based on your input. Thanks again, Margxx (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should allow another reviewer to take a look. It is rare indeed that I review a draft more than once. Different sets of eyes serve you better. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Should I leave a comment somewhere to explain that I've made these changes? Thanks again for your time. Margxx (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]