User talk:Mythdon/Archive 3
Email enabled
changeI have enabled email, so I can email other users and allow other users to email me. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 01:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
OS
changeI have hidden the ones that are valid per OS policy. However, simple attacks are not able to be oversighted. Only ones that contain libel. -DJSasso (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Please be careful when addressing messages to users. Notifying a user about a typo is okay, but your message sounded like a warning. "We need to have all of our words spelled perfectly correct" is also inappropriate; we should strive toward it, but we can do that by fixing it ourselves. We should be encouraging new users to contribute with understanding, not warning-style messages. It's only a typo after all. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Quoted on User talk:PeterSymonds at 22:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC). —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 22:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Instead of warning, Mythdon, why not correct it? It's a wiki, after all. --Bsadowski1 22:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- I corrected it before I warned (I say "warning" because others are treating it like a warning). I was advising him/her to avoid typos. The user made several typos that I have since corrected. No offense was intended. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 22:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I can see where you are coming from, but it did sound a bit bitey, imo. I apologize if I came off as harsh myself. Kind regards, Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- I corrected it before I warned (I say "warning" because others are treating it like a warning). I was advising him/her to avoid typos. The user made several typos that I have since corrected. No offense was intended. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 22:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Your recent RFDA
changeI've speedily closed it. Per Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Huji, an admin is only considered "inactive" if they haven't made any edits in at least one year. As you stated in your nomination, the user edited just a couple months ago. Thanks. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would like to know how the Inactive administrators policy makes the request invalid. The fact that the request does not meet the criteria does not make the request invalid. If the request was allowed to run, editors would be allowed to judge for themselves. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 05:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- The inactive admins policy explains in which cases an inactive admin may be desysopped. Therefore requests should only be made if a user meets the criteria of inactivity. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, we are not required to follow the criteria. An RFDA shouldn't be invalid just because somebody says "oh, it doesn't meet the criteria, so we'll just close it". This is not the attitude that should be used. That attitude doesn't pay off. If we get so caught up in criteria that we let it get in the way of judgment, then, what's going to happen when nothing shows activity but yet edits have been made? —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 05:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's a policy, so, yes, we are required to follow it barring a compelling reason not to. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- However, the policy only concerns requesting that a bureaucrat remove a one year inactive administrator. This does not invalidate RFDA as a process of desysoping inactive administrators through consensus. The fact that an administrator doesn't meet the criteria doesn't mean they can't be considered inactive through judgment. The criteria is not for RFDA, but for bureaucrat removals. So, therefore, the RFDA isn't invalidated. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 05:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- This is the RFDA process, we do not remove the rights of administrators unless they abuse their tools or they meet the criteria in that page. The whole reason we have this policy is so that there is no "judgement" to be made because "judgement" is subjective. -DJSasso (talk) 05:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- RFDA is a process for removing administrators based on consensus. It is policy that any one year inactive administrator be removed by a bureaucrat. If someone believes that an administrator is inactive, RFDA should not be invalidated for the sole reason of "doesn't meet criteria", because actually, there are no prohibitions from initiating an RFDA to desysop administrators thought to be inactive, because the policy is for automatic removals, and not RFDA removals. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 05:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Let me try and explain it to you another way. We created this process because we eliminated RFDAs for inactivity, (in fact we technically used to never remove the bits, we only ever approved removing them when they meet this criteria period). We only have RFDAs for abuse of tools. -DJSasso (talk) 06:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- To make it even more clear. The community came to a consensus that we only remove admin bits when they meet that criteria. -DJSasso (talk) 06:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't know that. I might as well not continue this on. But my arguments concerning the matter still stand firm. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 06:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- RFDA is a process for removing administrators based on consensus. It is policy that any one year inactive administrator be removed by a bureaucrat. If someone believes that an administrator is inactive, RFDA should not be invalidated for the sole reason of "doesn't meet criteria", because actually, there are no prohibitions from initiating an RFDA to desysop administrators thought to be inactive, because the policy is for automatic removals, and not RFDA removals. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 05:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- This is the RFDA process, we do not remove the rights of administrators unless they abuse their tools or they meet the criteria in that page. The whole reason we have this policy is so that there is no "judgement" to be made because "judgement" is subjective. -DJSasso (talk) 05:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- However, the policy only concerns requesting that a bureaucrat remove a one year inactive administrator. This does not invalidate RFDA as a process of desysoping inactive administrators through consensus. The fact that an administrator doesn't meet the criteria doesn't mean they can't be considered inactive through judgment. The criteria is not for RFDA, but for bureaucrat removals. So, therefore, the RFDA isn't invalidated. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 05:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's a policy, so, yes, we are required to follow it barring a compelling reason not to. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, we are not required to follow the criteria. An RFDA shouldn't be invalid just because somebody says "oh, it doesn't meet the criteria, so we'll just close it". This is not the attitude that should be used. That attitude doesn't pay off. If we get so caught up in criteria that we let it get in the way of judgment, then, what's going to happen when nothing shows activity but yet edits have been made? —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 05:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- The inactive admins policy explains in which cases an inactive admin may be desysopped. Therefore requests should only be made if a user meets the criteria of inactivity. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)