User talk:Vermont

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Welcome to my talk page! All messages are welcome, provided that they are civil and made in good faith. If you would rather converse privately, please email me. Thank you.

Stewards' Election[edit]

Hello, Vermont!

I was checking the votes and comments users have left for me on my voting page today and noticed that some votes don't follow the "usual template" (Yes votes 52, 53). They lack the ability to be checked for eligibility. I believe they have come manually instead of using the script, I could be wrong. I thought about fixing the code myself but then I thought that that may constitute as a conflict of interest of some sort since I'd be messing around with other people's votes about me so I was hoping someone else could do it for me. I found your name in the Election Committee and I thought to ask you. - Klein Muçi (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They were fixed with this edit by user:Johannnes89. Thank you! — Klein Muçi (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to bother you.[edit]

Sorry to bother you, but when should this discussion [1] be closed?

And according to.....if it is positive as it is where could I make a request for "amnesty"? Sorry again. 19:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you are the subject of the ban request, your accounts are locked and I do not recommend trying to engage here. There is not necessarily a set closing date/time for the discussion. Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 00:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey there[edit]

Hi Rae, just wanted to let you know that the editor who created the Transparency Town Hall page is likely going to accuse you of harassing them and ask you to self revert. They did the same thing prior to their ban on the english wikipedia. Philipnelson99 (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep, I wrote that comment before checking their other recent contribs. Currently writing an updated message... Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 16:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, nice to see ya again :) Philipnelson99 (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, they're blocked now, and I've moved the page to their userspace without leaving a redirect. Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 16:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Queering Wikipedia 2023 conference[edit]

Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group and the organizing team of Queering Wikipedia is delivering the Queering Wikipedia 2023 Conference for LGBT+ Wikimedians and allies, as a hybrid, bilingual and trans-local event. It is online on 12, 14 and 17 May, the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia #IDAHOBIT, with offline events at around 10 locations on 5 continents in the 5-day span as QW2023 Nodes.

The online program is delivered as a series of keynotes, panels, presentations, workshops, lightning talks and creative interventions, starting on Friday noon (UTC) with the first keynote of Dr Nishant Shah entitled: I spy, with my little AI — Wikiway as a means to disrupt the ‘dirty queer’ impulses of emergent AI platforms. Second keynote is at Sunday’s closure by Esra’a Al Shafei, Wikimedia Foundation’s Board of Trustees vice chair, entitled: Digital Public Spaces for Queer Communities.

If you have been an active Wikimedian or enthusiast, supporting LGBT+ activities or if you identify as part of the larger LGBT+ community and allies in Wikimedia, please join us in advancing this thematic work. We encourage you to join online or in person with fellow Wikimedians if it is easy and safe to do so. Our working languages are English and Spanish, with possible local language support at sites of Nodes.

Registration for the online event is free and is open until Wednesday May 10th at 18:00 UTC, for safety protocol. Late event registration approval and event access denial is at the discretion of organizers.

More information, and registration details, may be found on Meta at QW2023

Thanks, from Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Feedback On The Leadership Development Plan is Important![edit]

Hi Vermont!

I hope you are well :)

I am reaching out to you specifically on behalf of the Leadership Development Working Group (LDWG) who recently published the Leadership Development Plan, a practical resource for emerging and existing leaders across the Wikimedia movement who want to develop themselves and others. Your perspectives will be really helpful in making this resource useful. Any opinions, feedback or ideas that you share would be appreciated. You can give feedback through the short survey, MS Forum, talk page or email at

The review period closes on Sunday May 28, 2023.

Thank you!

Best, Cassie Casares (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Verrmont, there is an unblock request about a block you worked open here. Thought you might want to review first. — xaosflux Talk 13:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the ping :-) Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 16:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So sorry to bother you[edit]

So sorry to bother you, but could you tell me where or who can I report to about my issue, especially in

As you see he continues defaming me not only in but also in other wiki. He blamed me for "'s not in spam blacklist". What he said about my threats, intimidation and other means to prevent the administrator, ist totally fake. Most of users in want him to give the provement like exact site links for his conclusion. I am the first person said it out, but he is so angry about that and took the point——I threated other users to against his opinion and so on.

I have tried to connect to but not get answered yet. If you can give me some advices, I will very appreciate for that. Thank you in adavance. MINQI (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've left a message on the other user's talk page. MINQI, I understand it is not exactly easy being publicly accused of unsupported claims such as these, but Meta-Wiki is not the place to resolve this dispute. It is a problem for local processes on the Chinese Wikipedia, and not something we can act through here. I would recommend disengaging for the time being. Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 18:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much!Thank you very much!Thank you for your help and suggestion. MINQI (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, Vermont. As you see we need this right for local requests. How we can? Gadir (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Wermont ? Gadir (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Gadir! Users on azwiki who want to request a username change can do so through the Steward requests/Username changes page, or if it's a simple request (does not involve usurping an existing account) through Special:GlobalRenameRequest.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem either are translated into az. Your request for global renamer seems unlikely to pass, which is expected as that role is rarely given to users who are not administrators on their home wiki. Regardless, thank you for volunteering for it. It might be best for an admin/crat on azwiki to volunteer for the role. For example, Turkmen, an admin and crat on azwiki, is a global renamer. Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 16:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, you are true, Vermont. Thank you. I am now a candidate for admin. Please close the current discussion. If I am elected as a admin, I will be a candidate again. Best regards, Gadir (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, Vermont. There are no problems with my contributions. I think you can give me this right. Thank you. Best regards, Gadir (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello again. Do you can look here? Gadir (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Autopatrolled really isn't particularly useful for Meta, as we don't handle patrolled/unpatrolled edits and pages like content projects. I don't see how the right would be helpful, but you can ask other admins on Meta:RFH. Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 16:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I am a trusted and experienced user, I can be given this right. Of course if you also want. The final decision is yours. Best regards, Gadir (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go banner something :D[edit]

+CNADMIN per Meta:Requests for CentralNotice adminship/Vermont. — xaosflux Talk 23:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wooooo banners :D Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 00:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Global contribution[edit]

Hello, Vermont. How going? I want to contribute globally but I don't know how to do it. Can you give me information? Gadir (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! What do you mean by "globally"? Every wiki is part of the global network of Wikimedia projects, so...I guess contributing globally would refer to editing multiple wikis. Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 21:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Against vandalism. Gadir (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh! So, there's the SWMT. A lot of users like to use SWViewer for cross-wiki antivandalism. There's also the #cvn-sw channel on Libera Chat (IRC). Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 22:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Indian Journalist President[edit]

May i ask what JPE stands for? Trade (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UPE = undisclosed paid editing. Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 17:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How did you figured that out? Never seen him mention that Trade (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When multiple sockpuppet accounts write articles about living people that use fake and clearly paid sources, make overly exaggerated claims,'s paid editing. Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 13:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Russian language[edit]

Hi! Can you understand the text if I'll write to you in Russian? Бучач-Львів (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Depends. If you send something in Russian and I don't understand it, I can just look up words/phrases I don't know. Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 13:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requests for comment/Global ban for Бучач-Львів[edit]

Congratulations, you closed the request referring to non-compliance with the rules at the same time: the user was notified (a little late, but it was), all wikipedias in which he was active were also notified, and his violation was also indicated (partially) with references to them. In this case, why was the request closed? The user has many violations for using foreign-language wikipedias (mostly Polish) to harass other users, moreover, he harasses even on Wikidata, while they are forbidden to him in the Ukrainian-language section and he has a personal restriction there. It is somehow strange to tolerate a violator and give him preferences. I wish you, of course, not to be attacked by such an editor who allows himself to call other editors: rude, liars, etc. Jphwra (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Вы знаете своим решением ви ставите под сомнение само понятие справедливость. Второе, что хочу заметить это подыгривание таким участникам как Бучач-Львів. У нас в украинском разделе (вы их можете увидеть в голосах ПРОТИВ) тоже есть момент когда эти же участники начали давить на даминистратора который принял решение о блокировке. Странно это. Участник нарушает много лет правила, при этом использую иноязычные Википедии, включая Викидату для атак на опонентов. И это воспринимается как нормальное явление. Ну что ж. Он меня атаковал там выставив мой комментарий о том что здесь достаточно не комфортно из-за подобных участников и время уходить. Так вот. В отношении меня он имеет положительные известия, если так все пойдет и дальше, то действительно, а смысл пребывать здесь если нарушитель имеет больше прав нежели ЖЕРТВА? --Jphwra (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jphwra, I'll respond here, and in English. I can understand (most of) your writings in Russian but I am not sufficiently competent in the language to write about complex, jargon-using topics such as global bans. Anyways.
Global bans have listed requirements on the global bans page. Most global ban filings include specific sections where they confirm that these requirements are met. For example: global ban for Kubura, global ban for Piermark. Both of these global ban requests followed the requirements in the global ban policy, notifying relevant wikis and users, and confirming eligiblity of the filer and target. I had reminded you of this, and though you replied, you did not mention whether these notifications happened. Just now, after manually checking the last 4 days of your global edits, I found the notifications, and have reopened it.
As a note, the case that successful global ban RfCs present to readers is backed up by links, diffs, and other evidence, rather than claims that users would have difficulty verifying. Creating a good RfC is an art, in some sense: you need to present a solid case to the people who are reading it, understanding that they come with a variety of preconceived notions about the global bans process, about the target of the RfC, and about the filer. Successful global ban requests create a case showing undeniably that activities occured which necessitate a global ban. Take the case of PlanespotterA320, for example: the first global ban request provided little information, was heavily opposed, and was speedily closed procedurally. The second request, just a few months later, ended 44-21 with consensus for a ban, because there was a solid case presented.
To contextualize the above paragraph for this current RfC: there are a lot of people who have opposed, citing concerns about your motivations or your prior activities with this user...enough to make it clear that this RfC is unlikely to be successful. If you would like to make a case for this user's ban, I would recommend working with an uninvolved (but still familiar with the situation/area) user who can help craft a case for a global ban, or simply allowing someone else to do it. In its current form, this RfC is more likely to prevent global action against this user than anything else. Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 14:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have English, unfortunately, through a translator, I really hope that you understand what I am writing about.
As for the unengaged user, unfortunately, I don't have any. The user Buchach-Lviv is in conflict with half of the administrators. As for editors, the situation is the same. You have to understand when he was in conflict with several dozen editors it is difficult to do.
Regarding the success of this application. It really is the first and I hope the last attempt for me personally. And specifically the question of success, under what circumstances is it possible to be positively satisfied? In fact, I am emotionally drained after his last attack on me on August 1st. And this is actually bad, because this is the way he squeezed out a considerable number of editors from the Ukrainian-speaking section.
However, thank you for your reply. I honestly didn't expect it. Jphwra (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vermont, since it's about me, I'll say a few words. Yes, I cann't say that I didn't violate the rules, for which I received a punishment. I must say that I am sorry that this happened and I had no bad intentions.

But my relationship with Jphwra this is a completely different story. Here is a very recent blatant violation from Jphwra: 13.08.2023 he called part of my contribution a laughingstock of the Ukrwiki (ukr. це посміховисько нашої вікі). He was shown to another, completely new ! 100% proof of his violations ! However, he still say that this is the my manipulation... He carefully studied my discussion page on PolWiki, he remembered what I wrote 7 years ago, which wasn't about he at all... But when I asked him if he would like to review his mistakes (that is the beginning of his persecution of me 2017), he began ... to accuse me of persecution ... --Бучач-Львів (talk) 08:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

отвечу на русском. Здесь абсолютная манипуляция от Бучач-Львів. При этом даже в обсуждении бана он также проворно манипулирует так как большинство голосующих понятия не имеют, что такое преследование от Бучач-Львів в Фейсбуке в 2018 году, что касается 2017 года, Бучач-Львів начал меня преследовать именно в мае 2017 года по всей украинской википедии из-за того что я ему не дал атаковать Флавиуса1, которго он даже умудрился атаковать в обсуждении бана. А относительно более чем 150 блокировок Бучач-Львів всегда умалчивает или обвиняет администраторов, хотя он всегда преследовал тех админов которые таки умудрялись егго блокировать за многочисленные нарушения правил. И преследование других участников тому подтверждение, а таких более 20!!!! Это те кого он преследовал по данным АК и они указаны в бане (точнее в решениях арбитражного комитета, а таковых было немало!!!!) и это без учета куда более многочисленных преследований и манипуляций с его стороны... И даже сейчас на Викидате он также прибегает к манипуляциям выставляя себя жертвой... Удивительно просто нскалько это прискорбно когда один участник ставит под сомнение нормальное сосуществование редакторов такого проэкта. К тому же Бучач-Львів был изгнан из проэкта о Тернополе. То есть это говорит о многом он даже не может сосуществовать в проэкте где у него одни единомышленники.... Jphwra (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Central Academy School[edit]

Hi. Sorry for the delay in noticing your SRG reply. Did you look at Central Academy School's Commons abuse filter log and deleted uploads? -- Jeff G. ツ (please ping or talk to me) 10:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jeff G., yep! I'll give more context as to why I declined that lock request. Global locks are an end-of-the-line type enforcement action in cases of cross-wiki abuse, generally where we would not expect an appeal or where an appeal would be unlikely to be accepted. Clear cross-wiki abuse, LTAs, UPE/spam + socking, etc. Singular human spammers, with no evidence of socking or prior Wikimedia editing, are not a type of user I'd generally lock. Especially so when their only spam is enwiki and Commons, both of which have been handled locally. If they're blocked on multiple wikis and going to more to spam, definitely, that warrants a lock. But...enwiki and commons, where the user is actively trying to appeal on enwiki...This case is handled locally and does not need steward action. We don't lock people simply for local manual promotional editing, unless it crosses into cross-wiki abuse or xwiki socking. Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 15:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, sorry for my zeal. -- Jeff G. ツ (please ping or talk to me) 15:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem, I understand! They're probably not going to get unblocked, but the importance of not locking is to allow it to continue as a local issue that can be resolved locally. Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 16:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I see that you have not blocked this IP locally even though you are a sysop, however, I have a question, although it might be a good idea to ask on another page than here, why the stewards user group does not contain the permission to block locally an account/IP? 00:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We can (steward local group), though I generally don't unless there's abuse here as well. Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 02:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Loverman Kingdom[edit]

User:Xmax Win seems to be a sock or meatpuppet of User:Loverman Kingdom (see the former's deleted contributions on Wikispecies). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confirmed and locked, thanks for reporting. Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 23:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for global lock[edit]

Hi! Please lock global account Ruski1488 because of digits in username (see w:Fourteen Words). I cannot place this request at Steward requests/Global because that page is protected and I never ever had any Wikimedia account. 03:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amendment to block rationale[edit]

Hey, Vermont. Would you be able to change the block explanation for these IP addresses by not including the request link? It's just that the guy responsible for it is relentless and were he to see that I was the one who made the request, I'll be harassed & doxxed until the end of time. Botto (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done, sorry about that :-) Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 17:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No apology necessary! It's just that this guy's an exceptional troll -- I reverted him vandalizing AN/I nearly three years ago - nowhere else, never again - and he's still dwelling. It's way worse for Ohnoitsjamie. Botto (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voting or rules? An interesting dilemma[edit]

Good afternoon! I noticed that you have revoked my administrator rights on Wikipedia in Esperanto. I said from the very beginning that this was not a problem for me and therefore I simply watched with research interest the progress of this campaign, launched solely for political reasons, as its initiator openly stated. I just want to draw your attention to something that you may not have noticed or understood, since it is unlikely that you know Esperanto. Over the course of a month, the initiator of the campaign attracted his like-minded people to vote (some of them had not appeared on Wikipedia for years), securing the votes he needed. But none of them could provide evidence that I abused the rights of administrators - although, according to the rules of Esperanto-Wikipedia, only this can serve as grounds for deprivation of administrator status. A number of discussion participants drew attention to this. Two administrators who left comments on December 20 and 21 also noted that I have never abused my administrator rights, and therefore the voting itself and this entire campaign are a violation of the rules and are completely invalid. That is why the discussion page has not yet summarized its results and no decision has been made to deprive me of administrator rights. Thus, we are faced with an interesting dilemma: what is more important - voting (organized against the rules of Wikipedia) or the rules on which the entire work of the wiki community is based? This could set a precedent for Wikipedia as a whole. RG72 (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Comment wiki wiktionary Please see also Steward_requests/Miscellaneous#Please_help_to_remedy_piracy_and_harassment. Taylor 49 (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RG72: I was elected to implement community consensus. The rules of Wikipedia are based on community consensus, and your adminship was removed by community consensus. If you'd like your adminship back, the community will need to demonstrate their trust in you via another election. There is no dilemma as you describe it. Regards, Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 02:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You don't understand again. I repeat more briefly. The Esperanto Wikipedia rules clearly state the reasons on which an administrator can be removed. Among them are not the reasons "I don't like his political views." That is why the administrators Marek Blahuš (Blahma) and Narvalo, whom the stewards asked to sum up the discussion, stated that the entire removal procedure was a violation of the rules, and the vote was invalid. You can read their arguments, or ask them directly about it. So the dilemma I wrote about remains. At the moment, Wikipedia's rules are being grossly violated to please a bunch of politically motivated fanatics and xenophobes. RG72 (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RG72: I do understand your perspective; this is far from the first time I've heard this argument. I'll try to address it more clearly.
First...past community consensus cannot justify ignoring present community consensus. In your case, the "past community consensus" is this edit from 2008 adding the de-adminship process after minimal discussion among three users. On the other hand, your de-adminship request had 15 votes, with another 8 users who edited the page but did not vote. With 10 users in support of removal and 5 in opposition, there was clear consensus to remove your adminship.
In terms of whether the request itself was within policy...I understand that the local policy requires that adminship removals be predicated on abuse of adminship, and your argument that no abuse was alleged. The policy definition, however, does not necessarily require abuse using the tools of adminship. Being an admin requires a certain level of community trust, and making edits or actions against community standards (which was alleged) is an abuse of the trust given to you as part of that right. I don't think you would be arguing for such a narrow interpretation of this policy if it was another user who had abused community trust but not technically used an admin tool in doing so.
Regardless, that point is irrelevant. You used rollback in one of the edits described in the de-adminship request as propagandist/non-neutral editing, which is a right you had from your admin toolkit. There was, thus, an allegation that you abused the tools of adminship.
There was an open vote, with 66% of participants voting for removal. Local policy sets a threshold of 50%, and thus I removed your local adminship. There is no policy basis to override the consensus expressed in that discussion.
TL;DR: this is not a court, you cannot win on a technicality. Community consensus is the primary consideration. Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 22:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, now I understand that voting is more important than the rules and it is enough to gather a bunch of your supporters to launch a campaign and break the rules. Wikimedia's position is now very clear. It would be good to explain this to the administrators of Esperanto Wikipedia, who have clearly expressed their position - and it is directly opposite to yours.
I could do the same as the initiators of this campaign did, trying to turn Wikipedia into a platform for propaganda, but, alas, I cannot stoop to their level - neither education, nor the profession of a historian, nor 15 years of work at Wikipedia allow me to become like a bunch of fanatics and xenophobes who achieve success by intimidating other users and endless hysterics and accusations.
A little clarification about the alleged abuse of administrator rights. I did undo the deletion of a piece of the article by the initiator of this campaign and recently did it again because it does not require administrator rights. I will add that, regardless of whether I have administrator status, I have done and will continue to do everything for 15 years to ensure that Wikipedia remains an encyclopedia and not a propaganda platform. Fortunately, most active editors share my position and therefore none of the edits I canceled were restored. RG72 (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"voting is more important than the rules" is not accurate, nor is it accurate to say that the people who voted for your removal were somehow breaking "the rules" by doing so.
Adminship is based on community trust. A community discussion indicated that you had lost that trust. It truly is that simple.
As an addendum: the "rules" are expressions of community consensus, which can and do change. This particular rule originates from a short discussion almost 16 years ago among three people. Your de-adminship discussion had 23 participants, and 2/3 of those who voted were in favor of your removal. There is no justification to override the outcome of that discussion on some barely-evident technicality. If you want your adminship back, you will need to RfA again. Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 16:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your arguments have two major flaws.
1. You can argue as much as you like that the rules can change and the number of their creators can be recalculated. But the fact remains: the Esperanto Wikipedia rules regarding deprivation of administrator status exist and for 16 years the community has not considered it necessary to change them. You may not like the rules, you may suggest changing them - but until then you are obliged to follow them. This is how all the rules and laws in the world work. And it doesn’t matter if they were proposed by 3 people or 33 - a community of hundreds and thousands of users accepted them and followed them for 16 years. You will be surprised, but the laws by which you live are often proposed by one person and bear his name. However, that doesn't mean you can break them, does it?
2. You claim that it is about the will of the “community”. Let's face reality.
The campaign was launched by Fenikals, who barely speaks Esperanto and whose contribution to Wikipedia is negligible. A political fanatic, intolerant of dissidents, a few months ago he demanded in the liberal journalistic project Global Voices that they expel me from the team because of my political views. The project administration turned out to be more resistant to manipulation than Wikimedia, and responded that the political views of the participants are their personal matter and the basis for exclusion can only be a violation of the rules - and I did not break any rules.
Since then, he found my phone number somewhere and has been flooding me with spam on Telegram. In some messages he demanded to explain my political views, in others he provoked controversy, and others were simply strange. Before this, I canceled several of his edits that violated the principle of neutrality, which, apparently, provoked an attack of aggression from him (they still remain canceled). He tracked me and my family on social media and the day he launched this campaign, he wrote to me: “Have you finally moved to Cuba yet?” (my wife is black Cuban).
He invited fellow fanatic Vale Lokesbarn, who last appeared on Wikipedia three years ago and edited his own page almost exclusively, to vote.
They called LaPingvino, who also last appeared on Wikipedia three years ago and, as an argument, could only babble that I was publishing “revisionist news” in the Telegram group that he administers.
They were joined by Goren, an obsessive xenophobe and political fanatic who had previously called me out publicly rusaĉo (the Esperanto equivalent of nigger for Russians).
They were happily joined by Taylor 49, a former Wiktionary administrator who had been stripped of that status by the stewards due to endless quarrels with members. I had encountered them years earlier in Wiktionary, and was surprised to discover that he reacted to any remark with hysterical statements, spewing out a sea of political fantasies about pri Putin, political assassinations, the KGB and even Russian kindergartens. At the same time, he constantly talks about his sexual identity and shouts that he is being persecuted, although I explained to him many times that we are working on a dictionary and his sex life is of no interest to anyone here. Etc. etc.
And this is what you call “community”? If this bunch of fanatics and xenophobes really represented the Esperanto-Wikipedia “community”, I would be the first to leave the project. Fortunately, this is not the case. The community is those who make the encyclopedia, and do not try to turn it into a platform for promoting bigotry and racial hatred. Here is a link where you can see the real community - the most active members who have contributed the most to Esperanto Wikipedia. You can easily find my name there, as well as the names of those who voted against it, but the names of the initiators of this shameful political campaign are not there. But there are the names of both administrators, who concluded that this entire campaign is a violation of the rules and therefore there can be no talk of any removal.
Now you have all the facts in your hands and you decide what you will do with it. We live in difficult times and the future of Wikipedia depends on whether we can preserve it as a universal encyclopedia, or whether it will turn into a propaganda platform where fanatics and xenophobes will be in charge - as just happened in Esperanto Wikipedia.RG72 (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had explained to "Vami"/"RG72" that I am not male many times before. So it's ultimately "RG72", not me, who always mixes in (wrong) sex (when boasting about others). Taylor 49 (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Taylor 49, just curious, do you have a diff where you have previously asked RG72 to stop using masculine pronouns for you? That would be quite helpful in resolving this. Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 21:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here: the lower one of two sections, adressing "RG72"
Mi jam plurfoje klarigis al vi ke mi ne estas maskla.
I have already several times explained for you that I am not male.
There are presumably more. Taylor 49 (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Taylor 49, thank you for the link. What pronouns should we use for you in English? I don't see it on your userpage, I generally recommend listing them there if you're comfortable. Best regards, Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 22:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another one: account "Vami".
And here: [2].
I - ME - MY - MINE - MYSELF -> EY - EM - EIR - EIRS - EMSELF (also acceptable: "they", "she"). I have two global userboxes: "This user has created a global account. Eir main account is on" and "This user is genderless.". I also have the (general and somewhat lousy) section far below User:Taylor_49#Pronouns_--_Pronomoj_--_Pronomina_AKA_Kata_pengganti_--_Pronomen. Taylor 49 (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, thanks for the info. RG72, please note Taylor 49's preferred pronouns here. Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 22:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RG72, you're barking up the wrong tree here. Let's review:
  • A de-adminship request was opened against you.
  • 10 users voted in favor of your removal, 5 opposed.
  • Local policy defines a threshold for 50%.
  • Your removal was requested on SRP, and I made the action.
You then came to my talk page to argue that the request did not technically allege abuse of rights. I clarified why a) such a strict reading is not relevant to this discussion, and b) the request did clearly allege abuse of rights. You are now arguing that I should discount the votes of the people who supported your removal because they are...political fanatics?
What you're asking me to do is out of the scope of steward work. I am not here to define who your community is, I am here to implement community consensus. There was consensus, achieved through proper processes as defined by local policy, to remove your adminship. I did so. That is the extent of my role.
I cannot restore it without another RfA. If you RfA again and there is consensus to grant adminship to you, local bureaucrats can of course restore your rights without prejudice. Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 22:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, that was a predictable answer, I just wanted to keep the experiment pure and see it through to the end. So, you have received comprehensive information and know that you have grossly violated the community rules, but you chose to insist on your violation - contrary to the opinions of all the Esperanto-Wikipedia administrators who took part in the discussion.
It's your decision and your responsibility.
You also know that you have been used as a tool to achieve their goals by a bunch of bigots and xenophobes who do not take any significant part in the community, and many do not participate in its activities at all. Nevertheless, you chose to act as their tool and helped them deprive Esperanto-Wikipedia of its politically neutral status.
Congratulations! RG72 (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May I ask why you think exempting users with 500 edits was necessary? I'm asking because recently my user page was vandalized by such a user as the direct result of that. I'm not requesting a block at M:RfH because this is an one-off, but I do want a satisfying answer from the admin who made the change. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 16:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh, sorry for the delay in response. If I remember correctly, an experienced user (without the autopatrolled right) was prevented by the filter from tagging a spam/vandalism userpage for deletion. I thus added an exemption for users with more than 500 edits.
Edit filters are a trade-off. There are very few (though evidently not zero) users with 500+ edits who would disruptively edit another contributor's user page. Allowing experienced users without patroller/admin rights to edit userpages is a net positive, in terms of those users now being able to mark vandalism/spam userpages for deletion or other patrolling-type edits that may be necessary. As far as I'm aware, this is the only complaint in 7 months, and is for an edit that was self-reverted the minute after and seems to have been unintentionally published.
Regardless: if there is a user with 500 or more edits who is intentionally vandalizing the project, they can be blocked regardless of whether they're editing user pages. And, if that happens, I would be happy to make that action. Best regards, Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 01:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh I'm one who did it, sorry for annoying you but, I'm clearly not vandalizing your user page. You're misunderstanding me, I just only "publish" mathematical function (which is known as sum of factorials I inadvertently discovered) there. I thought it was my artistic ability, hope you will excuse me :( ☀DefenderTienMinh⛤☯☽ (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested[edit]

Hello Vermont, We are conducting a poll of global renamers and stewards regarding some future toolings related to some rename requests. Your feedback is requested at the poll on VRT WIKI. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 00:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A technical question[edit]

Hello, Vermont, is it possible to add a 2FA for logging wikimedia mailing list? I've searched it a while, but nothing found. I remember VRT has such a 2FA system. Lemonaka (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure, my knowledge of that platform is limited, sorry. Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 01:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, dear Vermont! How are you? I would like to draw your attention to the request for comment that I made in July, 2023. As the situation has deteriorated since then towards the open vote fraud by the bureaucrat, a timely consensus on the part of stewards has become even more essential for the implemention of rules in Belarusian Classical Wikipedia. Best wishes,—W (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quick question[edit]

I have decided not to oppose Sakretsu's confirmation based on what you said. The only thing that bugs me is that I'm not 100% sure that I've understood you. I've assumed that you are saying non-it.wp stewards were involved in the initial glock decision, not only at the appeal stage... is that correct? SashiRolls (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Sorry for bother you, I was pinged in a case. However, this is a case on meta though I didn't want to discuss on wiki. Lemonaka (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]