| Revision as of 01:49, 2 April 2009 editMZMcBride (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users190,639 edits →BLPs: +comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:08, 2 April 2009 edit undoMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 7d) to User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2009/Mar.Next edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{archive box|]}} | {{archive box|]}} | ||
| == Aitias == | |||
| You said you'd welcome comments on taking the case. I don't feel comfortable about posting on that page (try to avoid drama as much as possible!) so I thought I would drop you a note here. | |||
| I see an editor who sometimes acts rashly and who does not react well to criticism. (Admittedly these two traits do not go well together.) I also see an editor whose heart is in the right place and who is willing to improve. I don't see any abuse of the admin tools. | |||
| Cheers, — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 17:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :You may already know, but FYI, Aitias seems to have retired. I would ask the usual motion be proposed with regards to where an admin has retired in the light of controversy surrounding his administrator status. ] (]) 13:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC) <small>Actually, there may be no usual motion, but you know what I mean, hopefully. ] (]) 13:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::No motion would really be necessary if this is what winds up happening. See discussion of last proposed principle and the Jossi-related items on the proposed decision page in the pending ''Scientology'' case. ] (]) 15:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Okay. If he still has them, I'm hoping he will not use his tools while I try to talk to him. ] (]) 15:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I've responded to clarify what I meant ] - awaiting your response. Cheers, ] (]) 13:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Cheers again. ] (]) 13:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == You're invited! == | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite/March 2009}}<br /><small>This has been an automated delivery by ] (]) 19:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| == ] == | == ] == | ||
Revision as of 15:08, 2 April 2009
| This is Newyorkbrad's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
BLPs
I thought you might find this thread interesting, particularly the number of (seemingly completely) unreferenced biographies of living people we have (approx. 1 out of 10). --MZMcBride (talk) 09:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm travelling this weekend but will take a look when I get home tonight. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- The bad news continues. Another possible 19,000 unreferenced biographies that aren't properly being taken into account (when things like the number of articles in Category:Unreferenced BLPs are looked at). Bah. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Monty Python's Life of Brian ban in british town
NPR story --Jeremyb (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey Brad, you've e-mail. Best, —Anonymous Dissident 07:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Adminbots
WP:BOT: "... When the Bot Approvals Group is satisfied that the bot is technically sound, they will approve the bot and recommend that it be given both 'bot' and 'sysop' rights. The bureaucrat who responds to the flag request acts as a final arbiter of the process and will ensure that an adequate level of community consensus (including publicity of approval discussion) underlies the approval. ..."
Adminbots are given separate accounts. One of the core tenets of the new policy is that adminbots should be segregated from their operator's account. (You have to be an admin already to operate one of course). Dragons flight (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Noted. I missed that. I'll modify accordingly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom and Aitias
Does this mean that the ArbCom is back on? Does he really think that he can slip in and slip out while he was supposed to be at ArbCom? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- As I understand it, the case should only be necessary if he requests adminship back. Simply editing is not the issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- He did the same thing to Ironholds. Blanking your page, stating a right to vanish, then going back on it, then disappearing, then coming back to oppose RfAs, its all just a little unsettling. Not as strange as this, but yeah. Maybe its just me. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)