User talk:Salvidrim!: Difference between revisions

Hello Salvidrim! See this edit, an update which you made to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/114.167.178.175. Wouldn't archiving an SPI report normally produce a clickable link to the archive? In this case, the archive is present but there is no advertised way to reach it. I might try to fix this if I knew how. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Generally, when you see this phenomenon, you should do a purge and the link will pop up.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)These things happen -- easily fixable by purging the page (which I've now done). Purging can be performed via quicklink in a few toolsets like Twinkle, or by adding ?action=purge&forcelinkupdate=true after the URL. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, yesterday I responded to this question on your talk page, and now you respond to it on mine... soon we'll be so fused that we'll be indistinguishable from one another. :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. I'm not anywhere nearly as colorful as you. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, that's a compliment I had never gotten before. :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you archived at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Twerking unicorns7, the main SPI page somehow didn't get a link to the newly created archive page. DMacks (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look a few threads up, at #Archive link missing?. I've now purged the page and I see the archive link. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wacky server! Thanks! DMacks (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Salvidrim!

I still would like to finnish that. I would like to bring it to pt.wikipedia Village Pump, so we can have a final decision there. We had some opinions from local sysops and I believe that from our side it only needs community confirmation.
If there is no problem, I am starting a discussion there, but please confirm to me that, if we get local consensus, this change can be made. Kind regards.—Teles «Talk to me˱_{M @ C S}˲» 05:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It's certainly possible but clearly requires a bit more integration work from the English UTRS developer, DeltaQuad, who is extremely busy with other matters (Arbitration Committee and other things) these days. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 12:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi Teles, I definitely want to get around to accommodating you for the ptwiki. The sad part is, I need time or more developers. There will be an eventual translation needed from you guys, but that's not ready yet. I'll post to our bot operators' board in the next few days to see if I can garner any help to get things rolling along for you guys. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaQuad and Salvidrim!: Thanks. I think translating is not a problem as I can do it myself. The old way of using a list is clearly not working anymore and the possible solution is using UTRS. I understand you are busy with other things and will be waiting for you guys. Regards.—Teles «Talk to me˱_{M @ C S}˲» 20:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are bilingual, I was wondering if you would be interested in translating a couple of small articles in French for me? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure! I won't commit to any ETA because my I'm a gold medalist in lazy procrastination but toss me what you need and I'll get it done eventually! :D ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  No deadline! Thank you! Take your time. The articles are small: Maude Jacques and Cindy Ouellet. I sometimes forget that not all Canadians can speak English very well. But these two can. In fact, Maude was translating for me in Beijing. I tried auto-translating one once, but they delete unless the French is perfect, and mine's terrible. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll be honoured to work on the articles! The most complicated thing will be to figure out the frwiki versions of the various templates used. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Hawkeye7 - Haven't had time to delve into this but I'm keeping this thread unarchived as a reminder. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for closing the DRV for Vu Digital at WP:Deletion review/Log/2015 November 30. Your suggestion, "or by providing attribution (such as an edit summary "merged out from Vu Digital, attribution to contributors can be found in its history", regardless of whether said history is visible to non-admins or admins only)", is incompatible with WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution (guideline) and is not listed as an alternative at WP:Merge and delete (essay). Flatscan (talk) 05:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The current arrangement should be satisfying to you. Cunard, I've gone ahead and already created the redirect you wanted and left the list of all the contributors on the talk page of said redirect. Linking to the talk page (and/or my specific diff) is sufficient to satisfy WP:PATT. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As I noted at the DRV, when asked, five of the nine AfD participants were supportive of my proposal to restore the article's history under the redirect to facilitate a merge. A sixth AfD participant wrote: "Do what you want". Two-thirds of the AfD participants supported my proposal. This significantly weakens the arguments in the AfD saying that restoring the article's history would override the AfD participants' wishes. Since restoring the article's history under the redirect would comply with a majority of the AfD participants' wishes and there was no consensus against it, I do not understand why the article's history cannot be restored under the redirect.

  If you decline the request, I would like to have the full history of the article, including all past revisions, available to facilitate a merge since the last version may not contain all the available content for a merge. Please undelete Vu Digital and move it to Talk:C Spire Wireless/Vu Digital. This procedure is standard for cut-and-paste moves and can be used here to make the history available. From here: "If it is inappropriate to leave the second copy in the main article space, you can archive the duplicate page to Talk: space (i.e. by moving it to some suitable title, such as Talk:RandomArticle/OldVersion)." I do not want it in my userspace because it eventually would violate WP:UP#COPIES.

  Cunard (talk) 04:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability says, "Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. ... Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed."

  Your ignoring of my query about your administrator action for now 12 days is demoralizing.

  Cunard (talk) 05:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't sass me about accountability. I haven't forgotten this thread. I've been monitoring the ongoing RfC and will act in accordance to the consensus that emerges from it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 12:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#RFC: delete and redirect has been closed. Cunard (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry that it took me so long to actually get to this issue, and thank you Cunard for your patience. Accordingly, I've restored the history under Vu Digital (and protected it to deter reverting to a previous non-redirect version contrary to AfD consensus). However I don't see the need to have it moved to Talk:C Spire Wireless/Vu Digital. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries. Thank you for restoring the article's history under the redirect. I have merged material from Vu Digital to C Spire Wireless. I agree that there is no need to move the article's history to Talk:C Spire Wireless/Vu Digital. I support the full protection and thank you for closing the DRV and reviewing the RfC. Cunard (talk) 05:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Salvidrim, I'm a little skeptical of the Gantlet vs Rajeshbiee/Rajeshbieee sockpuppetry thing. I've commented at Rajeshbieee's talk page, but basically they have virtually no significant intersections and their areas of interest seem disparate. Gantlet's favorite article is Kochi, Rajeshbieee's favorite article is Mithun Chakraborty filmography. Rajeshbiee's favorite article was Shankar (actor), but with Mithun Chakraborty filmography in #2. Gantlet has 645 edits to his name. Rajeshbieee has 19,000. I'm having trouble understanding what behavioral evidence led to CU being run in the first place circa 2010. Most of what Rajeshbieee has said seems to track. His Rajeshbiee account was blocked in 2010, the Rajeshbieee account was created six months later. The only think I'd say he was clearly "guilty" of was not asking for the Rajeshbiee account to be unblocked, but that seems so trivial. Gantlet also asserts that Rajeshbieee tends to edit Tamil film articles, where Gantlet seems centered on Hindi and Malayalam. That seems easy enough to verify, and considering they have only two intersections, it seems likely that he's telling the truth. Anyhow, just some random unsolicited thoughts. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Any discussion of this must involve Bbb23 who ran the 2015 CU check which turned out  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) and was mentioned as gray-ish (another CU might've confirmed or called it likely) and explicitly recommended (based on non-evidentiary instinct, but with which I agree) blocking the two accounts as socks of each other. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tokyogirl79 you might have missed this, where I replied. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Bbb23 has stated that he's not entirely opposed to an unblock with a few codas, namely that the editor has to have a mentor and follow the requests on the unblock section. My question to you is this: do you still think that he's a likely sock and if not, do you believe that he should be unblocked? I'm kind of halfsies on this. The sockpuppet connection is still an issue and I do trust Cyphoid's judgement, but I'd like to hear an "all clear" from you on this front just so that if issues do come up in the future, we can say that he was cleared. The biggest issue, however, is the mass creation of articles with absolutely ridiculous sourcing and the fact that despite having been here for five years, they had zero concept of any of the guidelines. This was a huge concern because this means that they either can't or won't understand policy, as most users with his amount of edits learn policy by this time, at least enough to know that you can't use eBay as a source. I'm just not entirely convinced that he'll change if he's unblocked and unfortunately, there's a history of extreme leniency on people with a large amount of edits. (IE, I've seen people make edits that we'd block a newbie for and get brought to ANI on multiple occasions, yet they're allowed to stay on because they've made a lot of edits or articles.) If we unblock him and he doesn't correct his actions, it's going to be very difficult to block him. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sockpuppetry issue wasn't the most cut-and-dry case, and I'd be willing to AGF and assume we were wrong, if that's what you're asking. However, and while I'm a believer in rehabilism, I hold doubts that this editor will remain unblocked for long. I will say that the quality of his edits and behaviour (sockpuppetry or not) weighed significantly in my decision to follow mine and Bbb23's instinct and blocked the accounts. If the user was otherwise constructive I might have erred on the side of allowing for the benefit of doubt when it came to close the SPI. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 07:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah... his article creation and general edits were definitely a problem. If I knew that we could have a very good, very strict editor looking over his edits, I'd feel more confident about any unblock. I know that Titodutta had been looking over him, but he wants a different, uninvolved editor to mentor him, which is fair - someone with a new, fresh outlook would probably be best since it'd give him a legitimate second chance if the user is unblocked. I'm tagging him here since he'd asked in the past to be tagged in Rajeshbee related threads. I think that I'd feel more confident if we had someone confirmed to mentor him. My request is that it would be someone who is strict, since I think he's going to need a very firm hand with things. He's had about five years and several editors helping him, so I don't think that he'd change if the person who helps him is overly soft, especially as he's been warned that returning to old behaviors would lead to a reblock. He needs to know that this is serious and I'll admit, I'm not entirely sure if he can change, if he's been here this long, had at least one very good editor helping him, and he was still making extremely bad sourcing and editing choices. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I was wondering if you could give your input on the unblock situation at User talk:Rajeshbieee. He's been seeking an unblock for a while now and one of the major reasons to decline it was the sockpuppet allegations. There have been two editors that have vouched that he isn't a sock or at the very least, looks unlikely to be a sock (Titodutta and Cyphoidbomb). There's still quite a bit of concern over the poor state of the articles he created, but the editor is aware that if he's unblocked he's going to be restricted to creating articles at AfC for at least a year (or longer - it's mainly until he can prove that he can make proper articles) and that he will have to clean up the articles he created, of which there are many. He's also going to need to find a mentor to watch over him.

What I'm mainly looking for is your OK to unblock him since you were the one who blocked him at SPI. I trust both Titodutta and Cyphoid's judgement, but I don't want to step on your toes here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to clarify my position on this a bit. While looking at the Gantlet and Rajeshbiee/Rajeshbieee accounts, I didn't see anything glaring that would link the two editors. Rajeshbiee's story seemed to be consistent--he'd gotten erroneously blocked as Rajeshbiee, then waited six months and opened Rajeshbieee so he could continue editing. His big "crime" in that case would be that he should have requested an unblock on his first account, but this, superficially, seems like a case where we could be the good guys and ignore all rules on this, especially if one of our colleagues made a mistake a few years ago during the CU. However, if Salvidrim has a better understanding/interpretation of the CU results/explanations, then that should be taken into consideration too. (Maybe the guys were roommates or something? Maybe the IPs used were very commonly used by professional editing rings? I don't know, because I don't have that data.) Summarizing, if there's a chance we were wrong or that the information we have is confusing, incomplete or inconclusive, we should unblock--a true sock will wind up getting nailed again sooner or later. If we are confident that we are right, then we should not unblock. Dat's my thoughts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've already said above I was fine with AGF'ing the sockpuppetry doubts away but that despite my belief in rehabilism I don't see much potential in an unblock. If someone's willing to mentor, then I won't oppose an unblock. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have asked them a set of questions: User_talk:Rajeshbieee#A_set_of_questions_for_you --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Salv. I'm wondering if you can do a checkup to see if some photos are currently pending at OTRS. They're all from Serellan, an article I'm planning on making, and its video games. I'm not sure if the developer submitted them in right so I wanna make sure its there first. GamerPro64 01:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of files pending review in the permissions queues at any given time. I can search for tickets but can't access the queue directly. I tried searching "Serellan" and "Christian Allen" to no avail. To find it, I'll need to look with an e-mail address, filename, or something more specific. You can e-mail me the private details. FWIW, tracking tickets is one of the reasons that when I negotiated licensing of some files, I requested to be added in CC. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I sent the developer another email to see if they sent it to the right address. I think they only sent it to me. If they say that they did or that they sent it to the right email, I'll update ya. GamerPro64 01:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Re[reply]

Update. He just sent it to them and forwarded me the ticket email. We're all good now. GamerPro64 01:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So I also requested a picture of the developer, Christian Allen. Along with the company's logo and gameplay screenshots of their games Takedown: Red Sabre and Epsilon, can you check to see what their ticket numbers are? GamerPro64 20:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2016012610001203 for Mr. Allen, and ticket:2016012610001043 for Sarellan. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Serellan ticket for all the images expect Mr. Allen? GamerPro64 20:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should be okay to upload now with "OTRS pending" tags with the ticket number. *shhhh* Lemme know if you have any questions! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Salv. I uploaded them onto Commons now and I will use them once the tickets check out. GamerPro64 21:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• GamerPro64 maybe that's just me, but I'd crop the logo picture more tightly... it's kinda lost in the middle of an ocean of whitespace, no? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing ping. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re: [1]. I would be quite willing to write up a nom statement if you are interested. — Ched :  ?  17:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• *shrugs* I'm only interested insofar as people think I can actually be helpful. I never bothered to seek an RfB nom because I never felt that we were in need of one more 'crat. If people think they do, then of course I'd be happy to help. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then I am inclined to do so. I have company coming in a couple days, so I doubt I will have an acceptable statement before the middle or end of next week. I've always found you to be very helpful in many areas, and have been impressed by your evaluation of consensus. As long as you won't "decline" the nom, I will work on it. — Ched :  ?  17:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've no more reason to actively seek a nom than I have reason to decline one. :) I have the RfB page for my name watchlisted ever since a troll created it years ago. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, not every editor has wiki-email or any kinda email. It's quite possible, that he has no way of contacting Arbcom, except through his user talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. Ryulong has e-mail. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But, we don't know if that email is still functioning, or do we? GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do, and it is. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well, GoodDay is correct that some people don't use e-mail, such as himself. However, I confirm that Ryulong does have e-mail and so GoodDay's good-faith concern is not an issue in this instance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someday, it will be standard operating procedure, to restore talkpage privillages to any banned editor'ss page, after 1-year :) GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong has contacted me (and others) in so many ways and via so many venues other than Wikipedia that I find the very idea that he may be somehow powerless to appeal due to his talk page access being disabled, quite frankly, laughable. Apologies to GoodDay if I appeared unduly stern in my replies. That being said, when responding to UTRS appeals, I often err in favor of a simple restoration of talk page access to allow the appeal to be processed publicly by an independent admin instead of responding through the obscurity of UTRS. So I understand your point. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict; @GoodDay:) But there sometimes are specific reasons not to do so, such as where the former user continues to misbehave after the ban (not applicable here), or where the former user is the subject of harassment. Let's drop this issue for the moment. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, to clarify, unlock the talkpages after 1-year of those banned editors, who behaved during their banning. PS: Like me :) GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, Salvidrim :) GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Salvidrim. Wanted to ask if you made any headway on drafting an appropriate article for Jon Jafari after your comments at the DR here. I'd like to help or give it a shot myself if it hasn't been started yet. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll get back to you on this shortly, but I'm hoping his brand-deal Starcade series (kinda hyping the new movie) got at least some good coverage! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I JethroBT: Alright, I'll just drop everything I've collected haphazardly:

• Pacific Rim promo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw8XQ3vdW_4
• Pepsi commercial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEjVCNw5nRA
• ZAGAT appearance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=il5snidcnHc
• TubeFilter interview: http://www.tubefilter.com/2014/05/15/jontron-youtube-millionaires
• Outrage Database interview: http://www.outragedatabase.com/2014/08/interview-with-jontron
• GAME_JAM: http://tmi.kotaku.com/the-indie-game-reality-tv-show-that-went-to-hell-1555599284
• Kotaku about Star Wars: http://kotaku.com/5907309/kinect-star-wars-is-a-terrible-game-but-damn-if-it-isnt-fun
• Kotaku about Bootleg Pkmn: http://kotaku.com/a-journey-through-bootleg-pokemon-games-1524340300
• Destructoid about Hercules: http://www.destructoid.com/jontron-died-and-on-the-third-day-rose-again-262420.phtml
• GG Breakup: http://kotaku.com/fans-are-upset-over-youtube-duo-game-grumps-break-up-585225892
• Crave's Top7 Youtubers: http://www.craveonline.com/gaming/articles/561673-7-awesome-youtube-gamers-you-should-watch
• Top10 Youtube Reviewers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8cdSDSzgGg
• He voice acted for TOME (Terrain of Magical Expertise)
• He cameo'ed/was referenced in DLC Quest[2], A Hat in Time
• MAGFest [3]: refers to JonTron's attendance at MAGFest in 2013 and his then-1.3 million YouTube followers
• The Michigan Daily [4]: refers to JonTron as a "YouTube gaming celebrit[y]"
• Kinja [5]: refers to JonTron's role as a voice actor for the video game "A Hat in Time"
• Mishka NYC [6]: a lengthy article on JonTron that refers to a number of notable elements, including his involvement with Game Grumps, his founding of the venerable website Normal Boots, and his media partnership with Amazon.com
• Dedicated journal article http://www.examiner.com/article/jontron-needs-to-do-an-american-horror-story-special

• JonTron is at least as notable as other Youtubers we have articles on such as Narcissa Wright or Ross O'Donovan, perhaps especially the latter... ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to immediately endorse my SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RutabagaAngel. CLCStudent (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I responded there. In the future, if you need a quick response from an admin, please report ongoing vandalism sprees after warnings at WP:AIV, request page protection at WP:RFPP, or report more complex abuse at WP:AN/I. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mistakenly thought that the reporter was supposed to place the user page templates. CLCStudent (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a huuuge deal, I know you're just trying to help. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. (LPC) I trust you have ignored my emails, which is plain rude. I'm asking you for help. Not for you to carry me child. Please. Block FactStraight. He/she is petulant. You'll be able to see several of my edits on this IP address and every single one of them is useful AND logical. BUT that fool reverts them like a child of 12. Int makes my blood boil. Alas. HELP ME. Fgs. LPC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.42.189 (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for using the collections feature in Wikipedia beta! Due to technical and moderation issues, we will be turning off this experimental feature. Your collections will be available for viewing and export until March 1st. If you would like to save your collection as links on a special Wikipedia page, please fill out the following form. If you are interested in giving your feedback about Wikipedia Collections please do so here.

Thanks,

Jon Katz
Product manager, Wikimedia Foundation
Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ben, how ya doin? I may have a few days to get back to that RfB thing and was wondering if you had any input. Can you find a few of your more difficult, or quality closes that I could use as examples of determining consensus? — Ched :  ?  11:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll poke around tomorrow.. Err, later today whenever I same up. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 11:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Salvidrim, i just wanted to know why my article was deleted, I had references. If what I was doing against Wikipedia policy, sorry. If it can be put back up, thank you, but if not, never mind, i hope it does-MajesticEli

• Boogie2988 was deleted after a community discussion. Recreation attempts must now go through another community discussion, which you can start by following the instructions at our deletion review process. Note however that the article you created today has only references to a bunch of Twitter links and not "significant coverage in reliable sources" such as media article. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate all your work on Wikipedia. I mostly see you on the project talk page, but always enjoy reading your constructive and helpful comments. I hope that a little star will brighten your day :) ~Mable (chat) 19:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I didn't forget this time! I do have bad news though. Common practice had evolved with usurpations that prevents any usurpations where the target account has made non-vandalism content contributions. I'm afraid that I can't action the request for you :(.

On the bright side, if you just wanted the account to prevent impersonation, that shouldn't be a problem since the guy owns the sul and hasn't logged in for at least two years. Sorry, Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck, you can't be serious. This is stupid and you know it. I have actual use for the account (to avoid missing pings to my shorthand) and it's clearly never been an active account (a week of use years and years ago). The decision of WMF to base their forced rename decisions solely on account age was the actual mistake and we're just trying to solve the issue here together. From the very on-set, active users should have had the chance to claim the name from clearly unused accounts, and the other account should have been renamed to salv~nowikn, not mine to salv~enwiki. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ajraddatz I don't disagree with the opinions on disallowing FUTURE usurpation requests, because post-globalisation they are not as necessary, but this is strictly to fix a pre-globalisation problem. If I had asked about it before the WMF's forced globalisation notifications went out (and I'm not prescient!) it would not have been an issue. Maybe this is the last unresolved pre-globalisation conflict (I wouldn't know) but it still need to be resolved. How can I get this approved? Who do I need to discuss it, at what venue, where can I, so to speak, "make my case"? Will I have to be elected Steward just to fucking do it myself!?!??! The only discussion I can find is m:Requests for comment/Usurpation policy/RFC, which is explictly not "consensus against" but rather "no consensus yet", and mine is probably a special case in that it is not a "new usurpation request" but an unresolved pre-globalisation conflict. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, and I generally agree that account names should be in the hands of people using them, rather than those who happened to make a few more edits years ago. It is also clear that the original user has no use for the account, with no edits since then, and he hasn't even logged in since SUL finalization. Do you plan on using the account for anything other than finding missed pings? If you were planning to edit primarily from it, then I'd be able to justify the usurpation. As it is, though, it would be hard for me to defend forcefully renaming a user with valid content edits, just so you could have a convenience account which you've lived without for a year already.

If you wanted a second opinion, you could start a request at m:SRUC. I would be more than happy to support your request there, but I don't think that it would be approved. I am sorry for saying that I could fill this a month ago as well; that was wrong, and I regret giving you a false impression. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ajraddatz alright, how's this: I intend to actively use the account Salv as a legitimate alternate account for use on public or non-secure networks, as was recommended at the recent Security Review RfC -- in light of evolving concerns about account security across Wikimedia projects, I think it is never too late to improve your security procedures, and I intend to do so actively. Is this sufficient for you to justify the usurpation? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. That, combined with your initial attempts to stop the local renaming during SUL finalization, should be enough. I'll action this tonight when I'm back from work. Thanks for your flexibility with this request. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]