User talk:Gaillimh
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Leave a Message for Gaillimh | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Hi there, and thank you for dropping by my talk page! Want to leave me a message? Click that link above. Please be sure to add a title and signature (~~~~) to your messages. Cheers! |
|||
| My archived talk |
|---|
| Archive 1 — 3 January 2007 – 19 March 2007 |
| Archive 2 — 20 March 2007 – 4 April 2007 |
Contents |
[edit] Majorly's RfB
Hey Gaillimh, thanks for your kind support in my RfB. Sadly, it didn't pass, but I appreciate the support, and I do intend to run again eventually. Happy editing! Majorly (o rly?) 03:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Identity
In the month and a half since I last asked you to disclose your former identity, have you disclosed it anywhere? I am going ask you to disclose your identity again every time you archive this page. Everyking 23:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Why are you going to do that? If the user doesn't want to address the matter, it would seem to border on harassment to promise to repeatedly post the same message that you know the user doesn't want to respond to. Newyorkbrad 00:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- He is free to take up a new identity without disclosing his past identity, of course, but I view this as acceptable only if he does so as an ordinary editor. The problem is that Gaillimh was able to have admin powers swapped to this new account in secret, without ever publicly disclosing who he was before (i.e., who he was when the community decided to trust him with admin powers). I object to that in the strongest possible terms. If he wants to be an admin under this account, he needs to either disclose the old identity or go for a new RfA under this account. Everyking 01:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- This has been discussed at length elsewhere. I appreciate your good-faith opposition to this practice, and it certainly ought not become commonplace, but there are extremely legitimate reasons that this sort of thing may sometimes be necessary, including administrators who have been stalked off-site based on their Wikipedia activities (I am not saying that that is the reason for this particular rename here). Your position that the user "needs to" do one thing or the other is not dispositive. In any event, your disagreement with a bureaucrat's decision to acquiesce in this request a couple of months ago has certainly been noted. I see no value to asking the same question of the user over and over again. Newyorkbrad 01:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Where else has this been discussed? And I don't think I've ever seen Gaillimh personally discuss it anywhere; certainly he never replied to me about it. The value in keeping the question on the current page is to prevent it from being buried and forgotten. Even if the switch was due to harassment, he can just wait a few months and apply for adminship under the new account; by making the secret switch he actually attracted attention (I've seen people off-site investigating the issue and reaching a conclusion about who they believe he was before). So I don't feel that's a worthwhile justification. It's too important for admins to be responsible to the community for Gaillimh to just pretend the issue doesn't exist. Everyking 02:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- This has been discussed at length elsewhere. I appreciate your good-faith opposition to this practice, and it certainly ought not become commonplace, but there are extremely legitimate reasons that this sort of thing may sometimes be necessary, including administrators who have been stalked off-site based on their Wikipedia activities (I am not saying that that is the reason for this particular rename here). Your position that the user "needs to" do one thing or the other is not dispositive. In any event, your disagreement with a bureaucrat's decision to acquiesce in this request a couple of months ago has certainly been noted. I see no value to asking the same question of the user over and over again. Newyorkbrad 01:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- He is free to take up a new identity without disclosing his past identity, of course, but I view this as acceptable only if he does so as an ordinary editor. The problem is that Gaillimh was able to have admin powers swapped to this new account in secret, without ever publicly disclosing who he was before (i.e., who he was when the community decided to trust him with admin powers). I object to that in the strongest possible terms. If he wants to be an admin under this account, he needs to either disclose the old identity or go for a new RfA under this account. Everyking 01:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
