Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Salvidrim!


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for bureaucratship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Salvidrim!
Final (28/41/3); ended 12:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC) - Withdrawn''' -- Apparently talking about sexual (mis)behaviour on Reddit makes people not want you as a bureaucrat. Who knew? (I should've.)

I want to apologize to those whom I call friends and who supported me on that basis but later wanted to change their minds due to GorrilaWarfare's post (some did, some didn't), sorry for putting you in that position. And I want to thank GorillaWarfare especially for remaining cordial and engaging in some level of reasonable discussion despite being the one to guillotine my RfB.

On some level I also apologize to whoever the next RfB candidate is, for they will no longer benefit from the half-decade no-failure streak I've broken. Salvidrim!  ·  &#9993;  12:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)'''

Nomination
– So.... RfB? Are these even still a thing? In the past years I've had a few people, including crats, ask me to run for RfB (Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 34, User talk:Salvidrim!/Q2 2016 Archive, whatever else, I don't make a collection of diffs) ... and I'm thinking "why not", you know? You might think "what do 'crats even do these days", and with less than two dozens (with even less being active) one can wonder. Renames have been globalized (mostly...), so the duties of 'crats are mostly enacting admin/bot flag additions following BRFAs/RFAs, desysopping (mostly inactivity with the rare exceptions), and resysopping returning eligible admins. However the main reason I think I'll accept the suggestion to run for 'cratship is that as a WP:BN regular (originally as an active UTRS tooladmin, to follow resysops/desysops to manually activate/reactivate UTRS accounts, although with OAuth that is no longer needed), it's where stuff with the best interesting-to-stupid-drama ratio happens, and if I'm gonna be active there anyways, maybe having to preface every comment with is a bit silly. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
 * A: While some will surely point out I haven't been super active in RfAs nor meta-RfA discussion, I assure you that I am an avid reader, and very experienced in assessing consensus and closing advanced discussions. I frequently close dicussions that are evaluations of a previous closure, such as WP:DRV and WP:MRV (with my closures even being sought out: 1, 2), so am well-versed in the definitions and analysis of "community consensus". ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;
 * 2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
 * A: To be honest, although I understand that is not currently the "automatic" practice, I would favor opening 'crat chats for any RfA that falls within discretionary range. I'd rather put it to discussion amongst 'crats than risk making a determination by myself that would not be fully enlightened. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
 * A: I don't recall any of the closures or decisions I've taken ever being called "unfair", and I've demonstrated over the past many years that I have no issues "engaging others in the community" and discussing issues. As for "knowledge of policy", while I've probably read most policy pages at least a few times, I think what is more important than inherent knowledge of policy is the reflex of reading and re-reading any policy page and the discussions that led to it before weighing an argument with regards to it. The willingness to research is worth more to my eye than off-the-cuff knowledge. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Ritchie333
 * 4. In November 2015, your account was compromised and desysopped. What did you learn from that episode, and how could you help ensure the security of privileged accounts as a 'crat?
 * A: It proved that fixes and upgrades often happen only after the problems actually happen. This event led somewhat directly to 2FA being enabled for admins and functionaries (about damn time!), and which of course I turned on as soon as it was made available. My mistake in neglecting to use a new password (instead of making my Wikipedia password unique by changing it everywhere else) would not have led to problems if 2FA was available then. I also learned that being woken up at 5AM by a phone call from ArbCom is definitely not my favourite way to start a day!! ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;


 * Additional question from BU Rob13
 * 5. In the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections, you stated in response to a question the following: "I've long been an anti-privacy advocate ... and as such, I've never been particularly opposed to "sleuthing" and collecting publicly available data in other to identify who's-who. ... I find that connecting the real-life identity of a Wikipedia editor with their account is a much less abhorrent and repulsive thing to do than many other people in the community. I'm not proposing anything specific w/r/t Wikipedia but I wish the general pulse of Internet users tended more towards transparency than privacy." (full context available here, note I did cut out a list of things he wouldn't support with regard to connecting identities and accounts for the sake of space). Bureaucrats sometimes are provided with non-public information as part of their position, including personally-identifying information in the form of a committed identity when someone is requesting resysop. I know of one such case at least in the past year. Can you speak to how your self-proclaimed personal "anti-privacy" views mesh with this?
 * A: I feel like I answered this already in the comments lower and elsewhere over and over, but maybe it bears repeating -- that I would like to see the views on privacy change towards transparency, it doesn't mean I don't have the utmost respect for the current rules, as they stand currently. Users who interact with our websites and who provide non-public information to Wikimedia functionaries and admins do so under the expectation and promise of privacy, and that is one of the most sacred rules of Wikimedia projects. Whatever I might argue for in a theoretical discussion of, say, WP:OUTING for example, in no way means that I would ever act against the privacy-related policies established by the community and the WMF. The fact that I find so-called 'sleuthing' "less inherently abhorrent the others within the community" doesn't mean I'm about to start carpet-bomb-doxxing people left and right like some psycho. The fact that I waive my own privacy willingly and wish more people would follow that path doesn't mean that I would ever "force" someone or violate someone's current privacy rights. And, for what it's worth, as an OTRS responder and UTRS tooladmin, there is more non-public information there than would ever fall within the remit of 'crats (in fact, OTRS is 99% non-public information), and I've never broken the Privacy Policy nor the confidentiality agreements I've agreed to (I have links in my user page infobox to their signature). This is not a subject on which I tread lightly.  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;


 * Additional question from TonyBallioni
 * 6. 's oppose was the only one that you did not responded to after it was made. Do you have a response to the concerns that she has raised in her oppose and the general comments section?
 * A: Copying part of it from general comments, short response (for the long one, see my ArbCom election answers): I'd rather deal with this publicly than deal in hypocrisy by hiding or omitting or whatever. We all have done "stuff" that would "look bad on a résumé" and I value transparency over hypocrisy-by-omission. At least you know what you get. I'm an open book. I could present a pretty, squeaky clean facade like some others but I choose honesty. I'm still unsure how "he flashed his dick to a taxi driver once" equates to "is unsuitable to serve as a Wikipedia functionary" but I guess for some people, judgement of values or personal character is everything. I respect their opinion, they have a right to disapprove of how I live my life, of course!  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  03:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Links for Salvidrim!:
 * Edit summary usage for Salvidrim! can be found here.

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.''



Support

 * 1) Support - I work with Salv all the time on the project, and have for like 5+ years now. I trust him on this. Sergecross73   msg me  17:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - I've noticed quite a few times at WP:BN where Salvidrim! has commeted, it's quite often that a 'crat folllows up with something in agreement. So if you're saying what they're all thinking, why not wear their hat too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs) 17:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - I've seen 's work over the past many years and have always found them to be a calm and thoughtful editor and administrator. He always takes any administrative action in line with the current polices and guidelines and always explains things when they are questioned and also knows how to interpret and judge consensus. I trust him and believe that he will carry out the duties expected from a Bureaucrat perfectly and according to the community's wishes. TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Yeah, easy support - it's not as if crats get to do much there days ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC) Sorry, I have to withdraw this support after some of the opposes below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - Finally after a year we have an RfB! No issues here, can trust he will do a good job. Class 455  ( talk |stand clear of the doors!)  17:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support An RfB, do these exist? (just joking, I knew they did) But yes, of course. My name is not dave (talk/contribs) 17:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) (twice, you seem to be rather popular ^_^) Support - No concerns; trustworthy and competent user. --George AKA Caliburn &middot; (Talk &middot; Contribs &middot; CentralAuth &middot; Log) 17:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - This user seems to have a very good understanding of consensus, which is really the core thing a 'crat needs. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録  17:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: No issues overall, and a NETPOSTIVE. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 17:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC) (Moved to oppose).
 * Support: But of course! --Randykitty (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC) Per the diffs below. Sorry, but that's just too much... --Randykitty (talk) 07:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - Why not? He's been around the block, has done enough RfAs to know what's what, but not so many that we'd miss him after he's relegated to closing them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support of course! An experienced editor who will do good, I look forward to waiting patiently for your first 'crat action -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 18:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)  You're a good admin, and I regret the fact your personal and Wikipedia lives were connected, but I cannot readily support given the privacy issues below  -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 07:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Support He has been active in changing user rights. Crats give user rights to new administrators. Marvellous Spider-Man  18:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Go for it! The rationale above sounds perfectly reasonable, already an admin and clerk, and I trust him not to desysop me unless there's a good reason to! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Very good admin and SPI clerk, no reason to suspect that there would be any rash of random sysoping/desysopping or any such thing. If they had wanted to damage the project before now, there has been more than ample means and opportunity available.  They obviously lack the motive, and can therefore be trusted with the minor bit upgrade requested. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not going to change my vote because nothing I said above has changed but like other !voters I am concerned by the off-wiki discussions described below. I might humbly suggest that the candidate should immediately refrain from further engagement in discussions that would reflect poorly on their judgment and equanimity. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - Yes, absolutely. I have found Salvidrim! to be an extremely helpful admin, and I'm certain he will continue to be an asset to the community as a bureaucrat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - whole-hearted support! Cabayi (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support not a big deal, and certainly if the some of the current terrible Arbcom mess believe he's not suitable, that makes it all the more important that he gets the role. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - I've found Salvadrim! to be an excellent administrator, and I'm sure he would be a fine bureaucrat. Sorry, the links brought up by  really concern me. SophisticatedSwampert let's talk about that 05:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - I've been working with Salvidrim! for a long time and I can guarantee that he has excellent judgement. His style may be too casual, but his arguments are always serious and policy-based. I read carefully all the opposing !votes, and didn't find anything problematic. Much weight has been placed on really marginal problems, like his opinion on desysoping, which is not even worth mentioning in this discussion.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I respect the opposing concerns, but I've known Salv for years and have no concerns he'll be a suitable 'crat. If an RfA were that close he'd surely start a discussion. I see a lot to gain and little to lose with this promotion &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  22:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)  Moving to "regretful oppose" &mdash;  MusikAnimal  talk  06:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Support despite Writ Keeper's thoughtful oppose, which gave me pause. However, Salv has never given me a reason to think that he won't do a good job as a 'crat.  Mini  apolis  23:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support No concerns, long been someone I check with when I have questions or need another opinion on an issue. Judgement is sound. -- ferret (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support This from User:Ajraddatz's Oppose is worrisome. I would have preferred a "Glad your back. Let me help you with the paperwork" kind of reply...(you didn't know he was a troll until afterwards). But the comments from those that have worked with you balance that out. &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   23:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I think that the desire to handle close calls with collaboration is a great approach. I have zero worries that he will misuse the tools as his first inclination seems to be conversation rather than action (and when there is no deadline, talk is the way to go).  That said, if there is something urgent, I don't doubt that he will act as required and initiate discussion as soon as possible.  The way in which he handled the compromised account fiasco to me speaks volumes - admitted his error, expeditiously fixed everything as he could and took multiple steps to resolve, and then provided a good synopsis of what happened and his actions going forward.  Personal responsibility, analytical thinking, and problem solving - I can't think of any other major traits I would need to see in a good functionary. PGWG (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) One of the good ones. Andrevan@ 00:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Although the Opposes do raise valid concerns I don't really see any red flags here, Easy support tbh. – Davey 2010 Talk 00:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Struck after closure per talk page request because Davey hadn't has time to do so before the RfB was withdrawn.  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Valid concerns have been raised, but none are deal-breakers for me. Double sharp (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Moving to oppose, due to new evidence of the candidate's unsuitability put forth by GorillaWarfare. Double sharp (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Support: We need fresh blood in the 'crat ranks. The opposes have their points, but I don't see them as persuasive, or even necessarily relevant. Salvidrim is precisely the sort of person I can expect to holster his own opinions and just evaluate the consensus of a discussion. Bureaucrats are emphatically not supposed to be the equivalent of Ronald Dworkin's "Judge Hercules"—they are not supposed to sit in judgment and, by the nature of their minds' conformance with community standards, apply the right answer. Rather, a 'crat is supposed to weigh the arguments in a discussion and determine whether a consensus exists. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I have often been impressed by Salvidrim's wise comments in contentious areas and (am I allowed to say this?) I thought he was a bureaucrat already. --MelanieN (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. The issues risen by the opposition aren't enough to sway me to that side.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  00:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I respect Salv very much and he's helped me a lot throughout my time on the site, but after reading the most recent link brought up by, I can't say that I can support at this time. The other links she supplied weren't enough to sway me (they were recounts of what happened as a child and I echo 's thoughts on them, specifically "I don't think that either Admins or Bureaucrats should be required to [...] have a sparkling Reddit posting history"), but the recent recount on indecent exposure was too far. I'm reluctantly striking my support, but I'm not going to move my vote; consider this moral support, and I hope that in the future I can support without hesitation.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  04:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. I was initially on the fence: some of the comments in the oppose section with regards to "flippant" desysop comments made at WP:BN as well as GorillaWarfare's concerns had me worried.  The items that swayed mere were 1) Salvidrim!'s answer to question 2 indicates that he is likely to engage in discussion before taking actions as a bureaucrat.  This is what I expect and what I hope he will do in the case of issues brought up at WP:BN as well.  In short, this makes me less fearful of rash behavior. 2) I read through some of Salvidrim!'s AFD closures (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9).  Several of these were tough decisions—what I saw is an admin who takes a lot of time to assess consensus and understands policy well enough to bring additional perspective to a closure discussion. 3) I do not think I have interacted with Salvidrim! personally, but my longstanding impression from reading comments is that he is a thoughtful editor that takes Wikipedia seriously and has not had any kind of strange behavioral issues here.  Altogether, this puts me on the support side.   Malinaccier  ( talk ) 01:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Moved to neutral after more evidence from GorillaWarfare. See the comments section.  Malinaccier ( talk ) 03:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - Never been anything but pleased with Salvidrim ever since he was a wee editor asking for help in adding font effects to his user page's name. Looked through the opposes, but frankly I don't think that either Admins or Bureaucrats should be required to be super-serious-bizness all the time, nor have a sparkling Reddit posting history. -- Pres N  01:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oof, yeah, that was a thing I asked you eh.... can you believe I actually got a super complex cross-project rename (before "global renames" existed) just for the goddamn exclamation point!? 2013 was a wild time :p  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  01:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I'd like to see some evidence of Bot work. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Love his work on Wikipedia. Definitely deserves the role :)) -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 01:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I usually lurk the RfA and RfB's, but the opposes in this nomination were so ridiculous I just had to cast a positive vote here. Does he do good work and do it well? From what I can see, yes, clearly. So in my mind this is well deserved. S EMMENDINGER  ( talk </b>) 01:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I know !voting to cancel out other !votes is generally discouraged, but in this case I personally find some of the Opposes simply ridiculous. If this happens to go to a crat-chat, feel free to discount this !vote. --Joshualouie711talk 02:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Strike !vote, reconsidering based on GorillaWarfare's findings. --Joshualouie711talk 03:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I believe this candidate will be a trustworthy 'crat. As noted by the two previous !votes, there are some ridiculous opposes below. It isn't hard to see why we have so few RfBs. Lepricavark (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Without entirely abandoning the sentiments I experessed in my support, I am moving to the oppose section. Lepricavark (talk) 03:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Support: Glossing over the negativity per below, Salv shows a willing to be a 'crat. A damn good admin in my eyes. Security incidents happen, and can be fixed, very easily. Night  fury  08:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose - Lack of experience in Arbitration and SPI concerns me here. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ... You are joking, right? 😂 ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You do realize Salvidrim is a clerk, right? CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  17:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe so lol. :D *then, gets off the computer and starts driving on this road.* KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 18:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see the list of SPI clerks. Salvidrim is clearly listed as sixth on the list of clerks. --Joshualouie711talk 21:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As noted, Salv is an SPI clerk, but honestly, considering that 'crats have nothing to do with either arbitration or SPI, this oppose doesn't make much sense to me. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In case you are not watching, could you kindly review the comments here? You've claimed a lack of SPI experience when Salv is a long time SPI clerk. -- ferret (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see that the redlinks were for requests by other users, which none were presented. Though I will stand by my vote per the votes below me. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Sorry, but I have serious concerns about the candidate's judgement and demeanor, having observed a number of their interactions since being promoted to admin (which I supported).- MrX 18:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize, you're entitled to your opinion. :)  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  18:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you give some examples of such instances? --George AKA Caliburn &middot; (Talk &middot; Contribs &middot; CentralAuth &middot; Log) 18:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I recall an example involving a now banned editor (Kiefer.Wolfowitz) in which Salvidrim! seemed to be encouraging some poor conduct by the editor. The other examples would require substantial digging to find. I will also note the somewhat flippant tone in this RfB. Many folks may be comfortable with this style, but to me, it conveys a lack of seriousness that I believe is incompatible with bureaucratship.- MrX 18:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't remember where the discussion with Kiefer.Wolfowitz took place. I believe it was in mid-2013.- MrX 18:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * People might think it's insane of me to go diff-hunting on behalf of an opposer but you got me curious (and I'm not one to leave my curiosity unfulfilled). I've trawled the interaction analyzer between me and Kiefer, and literally the only discussion I've found where we both commented seems to be an WP:AN discussion about sanctions to apply to Niemti. Kiefer's diff, then mine. I'm not sure if that's what you were referring to!  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  02:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that's not it. I have not been able to find it yet. I thought it was on Kiefer.Wolfowitz' talk page, but apparently not. It happened around six months after you became an admin.- MrX 02:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have stricken the Kiefer.Wolfowitz example, since I can't find it.- MrX 03:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) The concerns raised here and here about public/private information are very problematic. --Rschen7754 18:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. It should be noted that this perceived divergence of opinion with "the community at large" is one of the reasons I've always turned down offers to apply for Checkuser despite being an SPI clerk for some time; because my own perspective does not align well with many members of the community and/or with ArbCom's, I think there would be significant opposition to such a request and I've no desire to fight on that battleground. Bureaucrats however rarely have any access to non-public information (far less than, say, my roles at OTRS or UTRS which have never led to issues). Having opinions does not allow someone to disregard existing rules.  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  18:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Very well, but the controversial actions described in the second link above cause me to have serious concerns about your judgment on sensitive matters, in a role where respected judgment is a large part of what makes an effective bureaucrat. --Rschen7754 01:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC) (Postscript: I don't agree with every policy on this site either, but then I don't then take borderline actions that make people question my ability to uphold my commitment to the policies.) --Rschen7754 04:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh of course, in fact I will always welcome people "having concerns" about anything -- I'd rather have mindful and thorough collaborators than careless or negligent ones. You will surely find my answer above to Q5 to be relevant for you.  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  01:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per their views at the current BN discussion regarding desysoping of an account when it can't be confirmed that the user has requested it. The point of bureaucrats is that they make uncontroversial calls based clearly on policy. We trust them not to wing it when dealing with admin access and not to make policy. I haven't dealt with Salvidrim, but the current BN discussion does not give me this confidence. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If I can say, the whole point was to discuss the unconvential issue, not for a single 'crat to make an unilateral decision (I sure as hell wouldn't have). I was simply proposing an alternative solution. I would have made the same comment, subtantially, as an editor, admin or 'crat. Slight differences in opinions amongst a body ('crats, ArbCom or otherwise) are not cause for removing dissenting members, but are cause for discussion and resolution. I don't think any group, 'crats or otherwise, need perfect homogeneity, and I strongly value hearing different perspectives.  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  18:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It didn't seem a far-fetched comment to me. I don't know what the proper answer to that question is, but it seems like a reasonable argument that you'd rather have an admin have to jump through the small hoop of re-requesting adminship, in the unlikely event that the editor requesting the desysop was a fraud, than risk having a lost account be compromised. As Salvidrim says, it was just one thought put into the mix, it wasn't a binding decision. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with a divergence of opinions, but there are clear issues with thinking it is okay to desysop an account based on the unprovable claims to a lost password by a new account. It'd be fine to propose some addition to policy in an RfC about making the standard for a self-requested desysop lower than proof the same person controlled both accounts (I'd oppose, but I wouldn't hold that against anyone for proposing.) 'Crats shouldn't be proposing alternative solutions on the fly though. I think I agree with xaosflux's comments there the most While a desysop action is reversible, the community has shown via policy making that the removal of administrator access is a "Big Deal". TonyBallioni (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding, I wasn't proposing desysopping based on a claim from an unproven account. I was proposing hastening the easily-reversible inactivity-desysopping by two months based on the claim that the account was abandoned, considering one of the things that emerged from the November 2015 compromised-accounts fiasco is that we should be more proactive in not letting abandoned accounts hold sysop rights. I'm not saying "let's believe Jakob based on faith", I'm saying "whether Jakoc = Jakec or not, we should consider not letting an account claimed as abandoned hold sysop rights just for the sake of bureaucracy".   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  18:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The last sentence being my main reason for opposing, unfortunately. The point of bureaucrats is that they are bureaucratic and don't really bend the rules without a clear consensus to do so. Also, to be clear, this isn't any reflection of my opinion of your general work on-wiki, just that I think that point of view, while a valid one for an RfC, isn't one that I feel comfortable with a bureaucrat advocating. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No it's fine, I'm not taking it personally, I believe that policy debate is perfectly healthy! I definitely recognize that bureaucrats generally act within a very rigid set of rules for a reason. It's just that if, for example, the abandoned account was compromised next week, the whole community would hold 'crats accountable because 'crats declined to slightly hasten the automatic desysop of an abandoned account when notified. Of course, that's not a likely scenario truth be told, but it's one outcome to consider. Perhaps it is "easier" to discuss these issues from the outside and that from within the 'crat team there is value to not discussing these things? Anyways, thanks for taking the time to detail your perspective! :)  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  19:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Candidate seems to concerning to me. Mostly agreeing with above points. &mdash; JJ Be  rs  18:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. RfA's are usually a week of hell for the candidates and to start an RfA they must really want the bit. However, in this RfB the candidate's motivation appears to be "I'm thinking "why not", you know?" and "I think I'll accept the suggestion to run for 'cratship [because] having to preface every comment with (Non-bureaucrat comment) is a bit silly." Those two sentences alone would sink any RfA. And this is an RfB. Above, calls Salvidrim's tone "flippant". I wouldn't go that far, but I see what he means. It's not just the two examples I quoted, Salvidrim's answers and explanations here just sound too casual and too "ah, what the hell, let's give it a try" to me. I expect people to be eager to get their RfA/RfB bits. Sorry.  Y intan   19:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll bet you a 20$ that if I acted the opposite I'd get as many opposes for being "too eager" and "seeking power" and stuff like that. There's no pleasing everyone, so I'm sticking to being honest. ;)  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  19:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You're on.  Y intan  19:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but it's $20 Canadian, so that isn't even a large Coffee in the US :) PGWG (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I'd not heard of the candidate until today, but this very RfB shows signs I don't want to see in a potential bureaucrat, as explained by a few people already. My standards for voting at RfBs are different to RfA, and unlike admins I expect to see a real need for bureaucrats - I don't here. Plus, the answer to question 2 is wrong - bureaucrats are appointed to determine consensus as individuals, not as a group. We need bureaucrats who can make those tough decisions without needing to be supported in doing so. There is just a lack of seriousness about this, which is probably not the intention but unfortunately it comes across that way and it's not the right approach for a potential bureaucrat. Aiken D 19:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate why you believe we should only promote crats when there is a "real need"? Isn't it better to have many and not have them do much than to have few and have them do much? Disclaimer: I have not yet made up my mind myself, so this is not an attempt of "badgering", I'm genuinely interested. Regards  So Why  19:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe we need to overstaff this role when the only urgent things bureaucrats do is deadmin. Aiken D 19:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are so few 'crats that when a true discussion takes place in a crat chat, it can be difficult to find an uninvolved crat to determine consensus. We do in fact need more.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 20:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * When time called on GAB's RfA, I had a quick look around to see what 'crats were available to close it, and I think only four had logged in for any time during the RfA. So it's not like we're drowning in them. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I coulda reached 300... I coulda been a contender... GABgab 23:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per the same judgment concerns I raised at their arbitration candidacy pages here and here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Sorry, Salv. You're a good editor, admin, and person in my judgment. I also appreciate a less-than-100%-serious RfB nomination; one could probably have leveled similar complaints at my own RfB. But...I dunno, something about the most recent thread on BN rubs me the wrong way. I don't really begrudge you the desire to skip bureaucracy, but in my eyes, 'crats aren't supposed to move without public, cast-iron rationale, and your personal conviction that two accounts are the same--however earnest--isn't either of those things, in my opinion. Also, perhaps I'm misinterpreting, but your last response to that thread reads pretty passive-aggressively, at least to me. Again, I understand being a bit miffed at bureaucracy, but, well, they're not called "bureaucrats" for nothing--one is expected to fairly revel in bureaucracy, not be annoyed by it, y'know? I feel like this wasn't an isolated incident, either, though I can't say I recall any other specific incidents. Again, sorry; you do good work here. Just not totally convinced this is the role that you need to fill. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * At least I did a bit longer of a self-nom than a three word "eh, why not" hahaha *wink wink*  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  21:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  - Stuff like this is quite opposite the attitude I want to see in a bureaucrat. I would certainly be the last person to say that you can't hold both advanced permissions and your own opinions, but there are enough people biting the retirees who are trying to come back already. I would prefer if bureaucrats weren't doing that too. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I... I dunno what to say, I was actually going for retention there, to "let them down easy" from not being an admin while assuming they weren't illegitimate but also while encouraging them to contribute nevertheless. Also I'm not sure if you realize that account was indef'ed shortly afterwards as a troll. So I extended AGF and retention niceness to an actual troll and somehow I'm being too bitey? XD  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  22:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry! Totally my fault. I though you were one of the lynch mob that frequents BN trolling all the inactive admins asking for their tools back because they don't spend their entire lives on here. I didn't have time to do a full look, so I just looked quickly and found that one without noticing the context there. Upon further examination, you don't seem to be part of that group, so oppose withdrawn. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Reluctant oppose ... Looking through your history, I don't know that I could give an enthusiastic support if this were an RfA. Content creation is actually pretty weak. I can think of probably a few regular users who won't venture an RfA who outpace you by quite a long stretch. I can think of a few admins to won't venture an RfB who do too. Leaving an article in this state is less than ideal, especially since all but two sources are shoehorned into a Metacritic rating, which presumably should only need a single source. This is less than an ideal attitude, not that I haven't gotten frustrated at ANI before. Your most edited article with less than 100 edits is Dr. Mario, which is admittedly a GA, but a good 30-40% of those are reverts. I know we need crats, but I'm of the queer impression that admins should also be editors.  Timothy Joseph Wood  23:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't quite expect "content creation" to come up in an RfB, to be honest; it came up in my RfA where I had no article creations, and now I have a dozen or so, some of them I'm quite proud of (Karen Greenlee, Suzanne Hopper, Back to Stone are the short list). As for "bare minimum" stubs, I believe in WP:PUTEFFORT and try to put a minimum of info plus a few refs for others to work on (or for myself, later); Lucky's Tale is far from the barest stub I've made!! Stapling on multiple reliable reviews at the end of a "this game received mixed reviews" is actually the best way to get someone else to expand the section, since they already have the refs without needing to hunt for them. Anyways I don't think this is the best venue to discuss editiorial preference of stub formatting, sorry if I went a bit long. :)  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  00:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I imagine it is a bit novel of an approach. If it's too novel, then others are free to disregard it as they should. I've never been so bold as to seriously suggest an admin go for RfB, but... I know that I've done my fair share of history stalking, and in cases where I've considered it, it's because they've been both a good editor and a good admin. I don't much like the idea that we take our best editors and make them admins, so they can mostly stop editing. If I'm in the minority there, that's ok. It wouldn't be the first time. Timothy Joseph Wood  00:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose The way Salvidrim! conducts himself/herself in this very RfB falls short of what I would expect of a Wikipedia administrator and doesn't come anywhere near to what I would expect of a bureaucrat. His/her manner of speaking, or style of writing if you will, is so ostentatiously informal that I can't help but wonder if s/he isn't just clowning around and/or drunk, take, , or  for example. This editor seems to just outright have no sense of decorum and that disqualifies him as a potential bureaucrat in my eyes. I'm sorry, Salvidrim!, but I don't think your level of maturity is sufficient to entrust you with the powerful tools you're requesting. I also don't believe we need additional bureaucrats at this time. Iaritmioawp (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Do not mistake levity and cheerfulness for negligence, ignorance or lack of thoroughness. One doesn't need to act stern and dour all the time.   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  01:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * +1. If Wikipedia ever gets to the point where humor is punished in this sort of way, we will know Wikipedia as a community has failed. --Joshualouie711talk 02:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There is time and place for everything. Denying someone access to an extremely powerful set of tools based on their failure to at least pretend to take the matter seriously is hardly "punishment." Iaritmioawp (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Concerns over rather radical views regarding privacy. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong oppose Per . Plainly horrifying diffs, and I'm very surprised to see several people I respect in the support section. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose due to privacy concerns. I dug deeper to see if I'd feel comfortable with you having access to non-public information, and all I found is that you publicly stated during the arbitration elections that you read a blog that I would consider to be a stalker blog. You also mentioned your Wikipediocracy activity during the arb elections, and in looking through your contribs there, you even started a thread about that blog's associated forum going offline. The blog and accompanying forum I'm talking about (but will not name or link to in order to avoid giving them visibility) have maliciously attempted to out numerous Wikipedians, including myself. This association makes me uncomfortable with you holding any permissions related to non-public information. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 02:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * While it is unfortunate that merely reading material with which one disagrees becomes an "association" in your minds Rob and other privacy-related opposers), I stand by my position of not turning a blind eye to any venue that might impact Wikipedia or its users. I'd rather read the contents and be disgusted that remain blissfully unaware as you seem to imply we should. And I repeat, what little non-public information transits through a bureaucrat's hands is nothing compared to the masses of private UTRS and OTRS communications in which I believe I have proven my respect for the sanctity of our current privacy policies.  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  03:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I cannot overstate how little I feel "material with which one disagrees" is the same thing as "material that directly led to multiple people making credible threats against my life". You did not merely read the site to stay aware; you started a discussion thread about it, spreading knowledge of it to people who may otherwise have been unaware. The particular site you discussed and increased visibility for is a site that makes it unsafe for some to edit this project. The more you increase its visibility, the more danger certain editors are in. That is at best a seriously poor judgement on your part, and we need bureaucrats with good judgement. As for your OTRS access, I personally think that is incompatible with the stances you've taken and represents a legal liability for the Foundation, but that's not my decision to make. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 03:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I started a thread to ask whether anyone knew why the forums were taken down. Turns out it was form ProBoards ToS violations. Which should be cause for celebration, probably? Anyways we're skirting the line of WP:BADSITES so let's let this rest.  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  03:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per several above - Writ Keeper, GorillaWarfare, BU Rob 13, Rschen, and others. Keilana (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per many of the concerns above. Although the candidate does good work in the admin role, I am also seriously concerned about their ability to handle non-public information. --  Dane  talk  03:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per the most recent example provided by GorillaWarfare of the candidate's unsuitability. Lepricavark (talk) 03:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Keilana. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 03:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Lepricavark. Double sharp (talk) 03:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - I was instantly turned off by the "why not?" bit. I get it, this shouldn't be taken as seriously as a real-life career or something similar, but the lax nature of this candidate is something I do not want to see of a bureaucrat who handles privacy matters.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * PS - I'm rather disturbed by the past indiscretions you openly boosted about on Reddit. I won't demonize you for your lifestyle choices but I think it definitely confirms you are unsuitable for this position. Thank you GW for the diffs.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Nothing personal; simply does not seem a good idea at this time, particularly in light of, say, what Yintan says above. Softlavender (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - per GorillaWarfare.--Jorm (talk) 04:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Looks like a genuine good person. Never had the chance to interact, but the first impression is reminiscent of MMORPG. Recent Reddit posts provided by GW are very concerning. Combine that with the general tone of voice, it's difficult for me to trust the judgement of this editor, from an encyclopedic perspective. Alex ShihTalk 04:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Sorry, but my standards for bureaucrats are necessarily high. The answers to Q1-3 leave me cold. I need candidates to have and show depth rather than merely claiming they have it. The reason for seeking the bit and accompanying levity are disturbing. Levity does not suggest reserve. Quickly turning to a 'crat chat does not suggest clarity about the issues. The opposes above also give me pause. The judgment and perspective are not there. Glrx (talk) 04:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per TheGracefulSlick and GorillaWarfare's links. moof (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong Oppose per GorillaWarfare. Refer to the general comments for more information. SophisticatedSwampert let's talk about that 05:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per GorillaWarfare. Shellwood (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) Regretful oppose I don't usually take into account anything off-wiki, but this is hard to overlook. Sorry &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  06:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose - As per GorillaWarfare, this user's attitude toward user privacy and protection suggests they should have less access to non-public information, not more. Additionally, the attempt (noted by GorillaWarfare) to turn a bureaucratship !vote into a Twitter argument does not speak well of the candidate's maturity and suitability for administrative tools, much less bureaucratship. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose Your mis-estimation of public disapproval reveal a cluelessness bordering on incompetence. You are the posterboy for Wikipedians that need to keep their private lives and personal beliefs hidden behind anonymity; you may wish to change your policy preferences, accordingly. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 07:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 11) Pile-on Oppose. Perhaps it's unfair of me to say this at this time of day, but the very fact that this RfB has not yet been withdrawn demonstrates insufficiency in judgement and ability to read consensus that we require of bureaucrats. Also per GW. Snuge purveyor (talk) 07:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose, moved from "support". The stuff brought up by GW is simply too much, sorry. What pushed me over the edge is the Tweet (even though I didn't see it and it has been deleted, taking this off-wiki in any way is a serious no-no). --Randykitty (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose - I've been watching this RfB since it went live, and I really wanted to !vote in support, but the body of evidence above (and below) makes that impossible. I expect Bureaucrats to follow policies and procedures to the letter, but most of all, I expect them to be uncontroversial. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 07:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose per . The candidate, whom I have spoken to on occasion, seems to perform well as an administrator but the off-wiki evidence regarding his behaviour is disturbing, to be frank. Patient Zerotalk 08:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose. Recent events (summarised below) lead me to the conclusion that the candidate does not have the discretion and judgment needed for the role. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 10:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose I was going to stay out of this, although in my heart I already opposed because I just don't think you have the right mind set for a Crat.  Most people don't, so that isn't a bad thing, just a fact.  However, 's new evidence is quite disturbing, in part because of the judgment in posting that kind of information on the internet, and of course for the information itself.  I don't have an issue with your actions as admin (although I didn't support you at RFA), but I would have an issue with any extra bits, Crat or otherwise. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 10:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose per all the concerns raised here. — MRD 20  14  11:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose The links provided by GorillaWarfare have pretty much convinced me to oppose this RFB. Sorry about that. Poor judgement is not what we want in a bureaucrat. Salvidrim! is an excellent administrator, and in appropriate cases (and levels) I'm fine with their wit and humour, but ArbCom and bureaucratship isn't the place for that. — k6ka  <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 11:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 19) Other concerns aside, Salvidrim contacting GorillaWarfare on Twitter about this RfA is more than enough for me to oppose (and I should note that I rarely oppose RfAs and, to my recollection, have never opposed an RfB until now). If you'd contacted her via the email system on here, fair enough, but seeking her out on other social media shows poor judgment (and women, like GorillaWarfare, face enough problems online as it is without "trusted" users here adding to them). As a bureaucrat myself, I cannot trust you in a bureaucrat chat and I also have doubts about you even remaining an administrator. Acalamari 11:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose per the concerns that fail the same RFA criteria raised here. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 11:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose per the concerns raised by GorillaWarfare and subsequent Twitter discussion. I am also concerned by the somewhat aggressive approach the candidate is taking to responding to individual votes. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

 * I haven't seen Salvidrim! much in RFA discussions. If I am wrong, then please correct me. -- <b style="color:Red">Marvellous</b> Spider-Man  17:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * According to XTools, he has edited 26 RFAs and !voted in 18. --George AKA Caliburn &middot; (Talk &middot; Contribs &middot; CentralAuth &middot; Log) 18:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment! I've indeed addressed this in my answer to Q1. :)  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  18:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As you have since supported, could you strike your neutral? -- ferret (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you have changed your !vote to support, I have indented your !vote here. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral leaning Oppose. While I stand by my previous statement that the Oppose !votes based on humor are mostly baseless, GorillaWarfare's links concern me. While I realize that pretty much everyone has done things in their childhood that they would never do as an adult, publicly posting to Reddit about them is another matter entirely. --Joshualouie711talk 03:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. New evidence from GorillaWarfare leads me to doubt Salvadrim!'s judgment.  See the comments section below.  Malinaccier  ( talk ) 03:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. Not convinced by any of the opposers, but I am concerned that the candidate seems to view the RfA/RfB processes as a joking matter.  I don't have a problem with humor, but this isn't the place for it imo.  That said, I'd most likely support a future run.  -  F ASTILY   04:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

General comments

 * I'm trying my best not to WP:BADGER opposes but I feel that (especially for an RfB, and especially for a self-nom) responding to criticism is critically important, and I'd rather respond and add context when necessary and seem like I'm ignoring editors who are raising often legitimate concerns. I've never been known to avoid recognizing issues and explaining myself whenever confronted.  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  18:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Can only speak for myself but in this case I've found the replies informative so thanks, both to you and to oppose voters for their forbearance on the matter. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't know enough about the candidate to give a !vote, but I do very much think we need more 'crats. While it is true that the 'crat workload is much lower then it has been in the past, there still needs to be enough 'crats to ensure that on any given issue there is a pool of uninvolved 'crats to give objective opinions. Sario528 (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * As of the writing of this comment, 4 out of 11 (36.4%) of the Oppose !votes were based on the candidate's sense of humor. Just pointing that out. --Joshualouie711talk 02:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Polarizing levity" will be on my gravestone. ;)  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  02:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Um, I think that would be "Levitation Failed" on the tombstone. Sorry to see that. Shenme (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm absolutely horrified at the number of folks who have commented to say that they've examined the oppose votes, but aren't concerned. There have been 10 already since I made my comment. I see that Salvidrim! has taken the approach of replying individually; I'll save everyone the watchlist notices by doing it in bulk:  Some of you I know and respect; the rest of you I just don't know well. I'm hoping that you all have just said you've looked into the oppose !votes without actually doing so, and I would like to believe that it's not a common belief on the English Wikipedia that folks who brag about killing pets, sexually abusing other children under a threat of violence when they were a child, and being a psychopath should hold advanced permissions. I would similarly like to believe that folks who blame internet users for not adequately securing their accounts against doxxers would not be elected to a position where they would potentially need to handle requests by victims of doxxing who wish to protect themselves going forward. I see that since Salvidrim! was last considered for advanced permissions at the ArbCom elections, where I raised my concerns about his Reddit braggadocio, he's added indecent exposure to his repertoire. I don't think even Salvidrim! believes we are in any desperate need of more bureaucrats, so if we're going to add a new one, can it at least be someone who isn't an embarrassment to the English Wikipedia community? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll admit I didn't look at your diffs. I was reacting against other opposes and should have taken the time to examine yours. That being said, I think you have overstated the severity of his Reddit kid-crimes post and using a term like "sexual abuse" to characterize what he described on Reddit is, in my view, quite out of bounds. He was nine years old, for crying out loud. It is one thing to make poor choices as a kid. It is even understandable for an adult to maybe brag a little about juvenile escapades. But your most recent example troubles me a great deal. I will have to further consider my view of this candidacy. Lepricavark (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am hardly a social worker, mental health professional, or law enforcement officer, but I understand the concept that there are a lot of additional factors that should be taken into account when considering the case of a child abusing another child at nine years old. I do not claim to have any informed opinions on that behavior. However, I am confident in saying that I am extremely uncomfortable having someone who ten months ago openly bragged about their childhood abuse of another child elected to a position of responsibility in the Wikipedia community. Egging someone's house is a "juvenile escapade" and a "poor choice"; sexual assault is another thing altogether. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would have found his privacy-related views more disturbing if it had not been followed by a commitment to stand by the community's view. My concerns for his statements of his past actions were likewise tempered by his honesty about it combined with the fact that they were far in the past. So, balancing what I saw there, I considered the oppose votes not enough to sway me.
 * What certainly perturbs me is your link to his more recent adventures documented on Reddit, and thank you for bringing it up. That will certainly prompt me to relook at this and likely push me to opposing. Double sharp (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am troubled and disappointed that you classify what he described as sexual assault. In my opinion, there was nothing sexual about it. It sounds to me like one kid wanted to embarrass and control another kid. That's bullying, not sexual assault. It's irresponsible to throw around such terms in such a reckless manner. Lepricavark (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare, I was disturbed by the links you shared—without a doubt, animal cruelty and sexual bullying are disgusting behaviors. However, these things happened when Salvadrim! was a child.  A child of nine can and should be forgiven for mistakes like these if the child learns they are wrong. When I examined your opposition, this was my conclusion.  Now, the new link is very strange.  I do not particularly care about the sexual preferences of Wikipedians with permissions, but the behavior in question demonstrates a destructiveness and lack of regard for others’ property (taxi, etc) that is worrying.  Will this lead to bad behavior as a bureaucrat?  I am not sure.  It does make me feel uncomfortable and casts more doubt on his judgment.  In light of this new information, I am striking my support from the record and moving to neutral.  Malinaccier  ( talk ) 11:41 pm, Today (UTC−4)
 * Of course I read the comments. Your comment that I just said [I've] looked into the oppose !votes without actually doing so is quite offensive to me because it implies that I lied. I am equally disgusted that someone thinks It's OK to dig candidate's dirty laundry from decades ago in this discussion. I don't want to even discuss such things.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  11:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Short response (for the long one, see my ArbCom election answer): I'd rather deal with this than deal in hypocrisy by not hiding or omitting or whatever. We all have done "stuff" that would "look bad on a résumé" and I value transparency over hypocrisy-by-omission. At least you know what you get. I'm an open book. I could be a pretty, squeaky clean facade like some others but I choose honesty. If that makes GW hate me passionately, then at least it's for honest reasons. (P.S. I don't hate you lol)  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  03:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not impressed by GW's overstatement of your actions, but I'm also not impressed by your overstatement in suggesting that she hates you, passionately no less. That's not a great look. Lepricavark (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean... maybe disgust is a more apt word than hate, but she's certainly expressed strongly her distate at whatever I posted on Reddit. I don't think this is left to much interpretation, honestly. :(  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  03:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, disgust is a much better word. I dislike careless accusations of hatred. And, to be brutally honest, I'm a little disgusted myself. Lepricavark (talk) 03:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's okay, everybody has their own tastes. I'm personally disgusted by olives and anal sex.  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  03:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't find individual tastes a problem. But allowing everyone his or her own preference must imply that one's tastes do not impinge on the tastes of others, which presumably include respect for their property, and I'm not seeing that understanding being reflected in your Reddit post. It makes me feel concerned enough about your judgement, by way of what it might lead to on Wikipedia, that I do not feel comfortable supporting. Please understand that I nevertheless hold your work here in the highest respect; it was not for nothing that I originally supported. I just think that beyond a certain level of permissions, we need some standards, and I just do not believe you meet them presently. I do hope this does improve at some point in the future, but given how long this has apparently been going on I fear I shall be disappointed. Double sharp (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * For me, it's not a question of honesty. I am in fact quite impressed by your honesty and I recognise that just about everyone has done something or another that in retrospect they realised to be in bad judgement. What disturbs me is how you seem not to display much recognition that your actions were in bad judgement and how they appear to be a continuing problem. There appears to be at least a faint glimmer of this recognition for your childhood escapades, which I was willing to overlook as far in the past. But I cannot support a candidate who continually displays such bad judgement that there would be this stark a contrast of cleanliness between the truth and a hypothetical façade. For what it's worth, I do not remember having interacted with you (though I remember your name from somewhere on WP) and I most certainly do not hate you. I just don't personally think anymore that you should hold this position of responsibility, with no hard feelings attached to it. (And, after reading the above through the edit conflict, your accusation that GorillaWarfare somehow hates you, combined with the fact that you still don't seem to realise the problem, does not inspire much confidence in me either.) Double sharp (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed that "hate" was somewhat of an over-broad usage of the word.  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  03:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, I completely understand that: all of us have probably misused words like that at some point or another, and I have struck out the portion of my comment replying to that. But I didn't and don't think that is the main problem, and I remain concerned. Double sharp (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not hate you; I'm not sure I hate anyone, honestly. Disgust might be more apt. It was 10 months ago when you said you coerced a neighbour kid into touching each other's willies (we were both 9) under the threat of violence. An adult bragging of these kinds of things on Reddit, etc. is not the kind of person I want holding trusted positions on this project of ours. You seem to be unapologetic and discuss these actions without remorse. That's what horrifies me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I also don't appreciate the insinuation that this is me disapproving of "how you live your life" or "your tastes". I'm probably among the last people who would care how you live your life, assuming it was not harming others. However, your boasts of assaulting other children when you were a child and of indecently exposing yourself to a taxi driver quite recently are not a matter of taste or lifestyle choice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responding anyways. While I may have difficulty properly expressing and conveying my feelings of regret for some of the things I've done as a kid (these instances included), I don't think it is fair to characterize it as "bragging" - laconic, perhaps, at least in the way it was expressed. But talking about it publicly was the first step I feel, however misguided it may have been to choose Reddit as the outlet.  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  04:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I can certainly see awareness that what you did as a kid was wrong; what I'm missing is something similar for your more recent doings on Reddit, and I find it a bit difficult to reconcile this statement with what you said earlier at your ArbCom candidacy: "I do my best never to regret past actions; mistakes can be acknowledged, learnt from and corrected, but regret itself seems counter-productive to me, as opposed to correction and moving on." Yet now you say you have feelings of regret for it. While I would normally want to take that as a good sign, the lack of any really significant difference in behaviour between then and now makes me worried that you might not really be meaning it all that seriously, but rather backpedalling simply because you get the feeling that people are concentrating on that aspect without quite understanding why. The fact that you thanked me for one of my comments about this likewise suggests to me an increased level of self-awareness and makes me more hopeful that I shall be able to support you at a future RfB. But I still am not seeing a real understanding, or acknowledgement, of the issue that is your present judgement skills, that would perhaps push me back to being neutral. Double sharp (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the best way to explain is that while yes, of course, I regret the shit I've done as a kid, I try not to spend time dwelling on such regret, instead learning from mistakes and moving forward. Perhaps I should? I mean this is RfB, not RfPsychoanalysis, but I fully understand your feelings. As for the more recent dealings... what can I even say, right?  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  04:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Not sure if I'm allowed to respond here or if I'm meant to respond in a non-threaded section. Anyone can feel free to move this if I'm in the wrong place. We all have done "stuff" that would "look bad on a résumé" "stuff" that "looks bad on a résumé" is showing up to work hungover, or cutting out thirty minutes early to go see a show. "Flashing your dick to a taxi driver" is indecent exposure, and I believe it's a crime in Canada as well as the U.S. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Moved from inline response on question 6 above. — xaosflux  Talk 03:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Xaosflux. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Looks like Salvidrim! is now trying to drag me on Twitter: . Not a great look, dude. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Is this how you handle conflict? Calling out folks who oppose your RfB on Twitter to try to sic your GamerGate followers from r/WikiInAction on them? GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry if it felt that way. I'm barely on Twitter and definitely don't have a "posse" or GG involvement and I wasn't trying to start shit elsewhere. I was trying to express my disappointment at seeing a figure whom I I respect judge me so negatively and did not feel like that could be done on-wiki (though I ended up do so anyways). Would rather I delete my tweet?   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  05:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Just seeing this now, and it seems you've already deleted the tweet. Had I seen this question before you deleted it I probably wouldn't have told you to delete it, since you'd already gone ahead and posted it. But I still wonder why you decided to bring this offwiki, and what your goal was in engaging your Twitter audience vs. folks onwiki. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I wonder how long it's going to be before we get the whole dichotomy between "I have nothing to hide so there's no point in privacy" versus "Don't go into my personal life to get opinions about me." Wonderful comments: ""Is it racist if I complain that the lead character is black?".  Yes, dude. It is racist.--Jorm (talk) 05:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm never going to criticize someone for holding me accountable to stuff I've publicly posted. I don't think it's racist to complain than a video game avatar is of a set race instead of customizable but I don't think this is the best place to argue that.   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  05:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Lemme know when yer gonna complain that you can't choose the genetic makeup of any other bland, boring white guy in a game. Then I might believe the bullshit that came out of your mouth.--Jorm (talk) 05:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As a white guy who likes to make characters who resemble me, I'm fairly certain the same is true for players of all other races as well, so sure I support full customization whenever possible! Please don't be agressive, man, I respect you and your right to opinion and judgement of me, but you don't need to characterize everything I say as tendentious bullshit.  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  05:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm saying: Your comment is racist. If you want to disavow it, disavow it. Tell us that you've thought different, or that you're misunderstood, or whatever else. Otherwise, claim it and own it.  Take your pick.--Jorm (talk) 05:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I must confess that I do not see how this is relevant to Salvidrim's RfB. (Nor do I see why this is racist at all, although I see that arguing this point is futile.) I do not see how Salvidrim's desire to make characters he plays resemble himself could conceivably impact how he would function as a Wikipedia bureaucrat: my concerns come from different sources. I might have been concerned by the tweet, depending on its contents, except given that it appears to have already been deleted it is both difficult and pointless to say much about it. Double sharp (talk) 06:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "I'm kinda sad that someone whose work I respect (@molly0x57) seems to hate who I am and what I do. :( Although she has clearly expressed why GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not entirely comfortable with posting his deleted tweet back here, if that is what it is, for the simple reason that he evidently thought better of it (perhaps after some prodding here) and deleted it. In any case it does not really raise any different concerns from the ones I had already mentioned, but I question the need to put it here. Double sharp (talk) 06:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * there's an irony in calling somebody a racist, and then making a racist comment off-hand. Calling a character bland just because they're white, is racist. It means you don't bother to look any deeper into the character beyond the colour of their skin. It means the value of that character is not determined by anything more than the pigmentation of their skin. Shame on you. Not that Salv's comment is any better. I chose to play as Khajiit for Skyrim because I like assassin and stealth type characters. I chose the character based on what they offered to me in game. It didn't matter to me what the dude looked like, could have been a pile of poop for all I care, it only mattered to me that there was a boost to stealth. Insta-killing practically every monster/character while sneaking up behind them is immensely fun. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , it sounds to me like you jumped to the conclusion that Salv is racist and decided you wouldn't listen to any explanation he might have for his comment. There's no warrant for your hostility and you're only likely to damage your own reputation on Wiki if you pursue this further. Lepricavark (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Mmm... I'd have to be square with you GorillaWarfare. The roles in your doxxing were more than just that of the doxxer's. I'd consider at least two people culpable in your doxxing who were not the doxxer themselves. The responsibility is on you to care about what you post online (and you seem to do this well). When somebody else posts something about you or including potentially identifiable information involving you online, it's their responsibility to care about securing that. I'd recommend not doing it at all, but, nobody thinks twice when posting a simple picture on instagram. This is a problem. Where that fails, and it will at some point, it then becomes the responsibility of whoever gets a hold of that information to not use it to put you in harms way. With regards to Salvidrims specifically, I'm sorry you were doxxed, but, that's a) not Salvidrim's fault, and b) his opinion is not a demonstration of Salvidrim's ability or inability to act in a way befitting of a bureacrat. In part, your doxxing was the result of the carelessness of a relative of yours and a friend of yours who, I would, consider culpable criminally (criminal negligence) should anything have happened to you. That is, by the definition of criminal negligence in Australia, the person took an action which: "[was] an omission to do something which a reasonable person, guided upon by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do in the circumstances, or [did] something which a prudent and reasonable person would not do". I would think that a reasonable and prudent person would take care not to make their facebook publicly accessible where they have personal identifying information about others. As for the geotag, this is something I am far less aware of on account of a) having never used instagram and b) not posting photos of myself on the internet (though photos of my do exist on the internet due to the actions of other people). A quick google search tells me that you can disable geotagging on instagram or on your camera app. Where this derails is, to me, it sounds almost as if Salvidrim's opinion on this, in your mind, makes him culpable as well. It does not. Unless you can demonstrate that he's committed a crime, or will commit a crime (conspiracy to commit a crime), or supports the commiting of a crime (not in itself a crime, but, definitely not a good character trait) then it is not my concern whether you do or do not agree with Salvidrim's opinion on the issue of doxxing. Let alone if you're "horrified" by supporter's supporting despite your oppose. I read your oppose, it did not faze me in the slightest. We make a fuss over people bringing up comments from a year ago to oppose, the fuck do you think I'm going to do with Salvidrim's forthcomingness about, well, crimes admittedly, (animal abuse and sexual assault - not rape for those of us who aren't aware of the difference) he committed as a minor. I am not going to hold him responsible for the duration of his life for drowning a bird or making a friend of his touch his(?) willy. I think you are way beyond the pale in saying to Salv, and it's obvious that your personal experiences are clouding (maybe tainting is a better word) your judgement when you call Salv an embarrassment to the English Wikipedia community. That said, Salv, you are definitely making missteps here. I have already spent to much time on this thread and these two comments. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I need to reping you as a courtesy to you. I had missed a curly bracket. I'll also add a short note here, that due to the nature of my comment above, I will elaborate on any point as requested. I could have go on for a lot longer, but, I'd like to keep my comment short. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - do you think it is time you withdrew this RfB? Clearly, you are losing support as more and more editors read the diffs provided here. I also do not think having your Reddit posts available for the whole community to see has brought the best out of you (hence the quickly deleted Twitter post). Ultimately, it is up to you; I just think prolonging this only hurts your chances for a another attempt.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Judging from his time zone and edit summaries such as this one, he is almost certainly asleep at this time, so I wouldn't pass judgement on this for another few hours. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally, I've never had a strong opinion of, but diversity is important and I believe he probably was fine as one of many administrators. However, recent behaviour (immediately personalising a dispute off-wiki) and certain things unveiled (criminal activity etc.) are beyond the pale. I no longer believe this user may be trusted with the mop as they demonstrate some severe temperament issues. What is the procedure for requesting de-adminship? PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I second that. This recent Reddit thread stunned me. Dude, are you out of your mind? I can not trust somebody who likes to do nasty shit like that for fun.  Y intan  09:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The answer to this question is at Removing administrator rights. In short, it's not very easy. You'll have to either persuade him to resign voluntarily, or open an ArbCom case against him. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would like to see this RfB run its course before any further action is taken against him. <sup style="color:#093">My name is <small style="color:#4000FF">not <sup style="color:#093">dave (talk/contribs) 10:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If we're going to reevaluate his suitability for adminship, we should do that based on his track record as an admin. Let's not make any rash decisions solely based on the Reddit posts. Lepricavark (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The above bureaucratship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

__NOINDEX__