User talk:Rivselis

A kitten for you!

The true welcome to wikipedia happens after being accused of sockpuppetry. Nice to have you around! _{Sorry about the unemployment.}

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was accused of being a sock when I first created this account because I knew my way around the site and now I'm an admin. People will first be suspicious with newish accounts but good editing work can allay any concerns they might have. Don't let it get you down or become bitter. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should just add that spending too much of your time at ANI will cause people to be suspicious of you. I weighed in on a lot of cases when I was a new editor and it came back to bite me at my RFA. In general, editors like to see you put in time editing articles, being productive, not getting involved at the "drama boards". So be warned about that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am undecided if I want to pursue the mop at all, to be honest. Rivselis (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rivselis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I originally created this account, in 2006 while attending highschool in Maine, later moving to the Boston area in 2009. I have only recently become active on wikipedia again. I understand that lurking for 13 years, and then immediately getting involved in the 'drama boards' can look suspicious given the amount of users who return after being banned, resuming old feuds and returning to topic areas they had prior interest in. I do not believe my recent foray into becoming more active at wikipedia reflects this trend, and I feel that any connection that could be drawn between me and Neotarf are flimsy at best. *My account was created roughly 5 years before Neotarf's (his talk page was created in 2011, please correct me if I'm mistaken) *I had a very extended time period of inactivity, during which the events of Neotarf's ban took place *I became actually active on Wikipedia again in February of this year. It doesn't seem logical to me that I'd registered in 2006, switched to using Neotarf, gotten banned, then returned to an account that had sat almost entirely unused for 7 years to evade a ban. *I was unable to find any indication that Neotarf has had other socks, or is a LTA. To be honest I'm really confused what pieces Tony put together to draw his conclusion. I have moved three times in the last two years, and to my knowledge any IP information on Neotarf would be quite stale, so I am inclined to believe Tony saw a behavioral link, not a technical one. *I am concerned that I am unable to find an entry for the SPI for my account, which leads me to believe that Tony used CU tools on the basis of the ratio of my activity in areas such as ANI vs. Mainspace editing alone, possibly raised by Salvidrim, WBG, or The Rambling Man. I feel that this is a case of fishing, since CU policy states "Broadly, checks must only be made in order to prevent or reduce potential or actual disruption, or to investigate credible, legitimate concerns of bad faith editing." Besides getting a bit short[[1]] with Salvidrim for templating me on my talk page, I do not believe I have acted in a tendentious manner or held a battleground mentality. I have delved into a few contentious topics- such as those connected with the alt-right, but thus far I haven't had any interactions with other editors that I'd consider hostile. While I've disagreed heavily with other users on the recent Fram brouhaha, I feel my participation in that discourse has been polite and respectful. That I've focused primarily on areas such as ANI in the absence of other behavioral issues should not have resulted in a CU action. I ask that you give my ban more scrutiny and consider overturning it. Relevant Diffs: *Having had time to reflect, referencing Righting Great Wrongs probably rubbed some people the wrong way. [[2]] *My short response to Salvidrim templating my talk page [[3]] *I've occasionally made some mistakes because I'm still learning wiki-syntax- [[4]][[5]][[6]] *I've also had some policy gaffs as well, such as this failed AFD [[7]], and mischaracterizing a CU close on ANI as being sock related (That particular ANI diff appears to have been revdel'd or oversighted, it's struck out in my revision history) which I was corrected on by Deltaquad [[8]]. Rivselis (talk) 03:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I agree, check user blocks are confusing. Only another check user can unblock, so please read the pertinent portions of the WP:GAB. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I originally conducted a check on Legitimate concerns about bad-faith editing. under the CheckUser policy. Particularly Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project. and Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. from WP:BADSOCK. I was then contacted by a steward who provided me with technical data that connected the accounts. It is Likely connected technically, and this data is available to any other CheckUser to review if they email me. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I'm confused. The notice says I was banned for being a sock of banned user Neotarf, while your stated rationale above for the check came from Undisclosed Accounts being used in internal discussions, not block evasion. Rivselis (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Collar Of Shame LolCat.jpg

The file File:Collar Of Shame LolCat.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

orphaned image, no encyclopedic use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]