Meta:GlobalRenameQueue/Notes/115252
@Xaosflux: Question as you were the user who handled the mentioned ticket in question; Was there a clear decision to let the user vanish one more time? This user already broke their vanishing the first time they were vanished, and until I get approval I will therefore place this request on hold. EPIC (talk) 03:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- @EPIC: feel free to decline. And of course they have all sorts of non-actionable items here. I think we had a very vague request I responded to in VRT, basically just gave a "how to request rename" generic response. And the Uxxx format certainly is also not acceptable. That last rename should have been rejected too "Deactivated user nnn" isn't the format we use either.
- SMS on the rocks --> Deactivated User 589323498349 (2023-11-11)
- Deactivated User 589323498349 --> SMS on the rocks (2023-12-24)
- It looks like they did make an edit, and responded that they were not going to make any more edits here - but then @331dot: decided to force their rename regardless. Will leave this back to 331dot for next steps if any. — xaosflux Talk 03:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- I guess I figured if they broke the vanishing once they would do it again, and that it was standard for it to be reversed if the user returned anyway despite the vanishing. No opinion on if they should be vanished again. (please ping if further input is needed from me). 331dot (talk) 09:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Considering that a) the user vanished less than two months ago and unvanished a week ago, b) the Uxxx format is not the right format and c) there is not a clear decision to let them vanish again, I have declined the request. EPIC (talk) 11:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- I guess I figured if they broke the vanishing once they would do it again, and that it was standard for it to be reversed if the user returned anyway despite the vanishing. No opinion on if they should be vanished again. (please ping if further input is needed from me). 331dot (talk) 09:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)