User talk:Vermont/Archive/2023

Stewards' Election

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)

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

Sorry to bother you.

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. 95.75.138.59 19:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

Hey there

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)

Yep, I wrote that comment before checking their other recent contribs. Currently writing an updated message... Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 16:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright, nice to see ya again :) Philipnelson99 (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

Queering Wikipedia 2023 conference

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)

Your Feedback On The Leadership Development Plan is Important!

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 leadershipworkinggroup@wikimedia.org.

The review period closes on Sunday May 28, 2023.

Thank you!

Best, Cassie Casares (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

UBR

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)

Thanks for the ping :-) Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 16:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

So sorry to bother you

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

As you see he continues defaming me not only in zh.wiki but also in other wiki. He blamed me for "kaiwind.com'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 zh.wiki 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 ca@wikimedia.org 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)

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)

Thank you very much!Thank you for your help and suggestion. MINQI (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

GR

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

Hello, Wermont ? Gadir (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Autopatrolled

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)

Hello again. Do you can look here? Gadir (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Go banner something :D

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

Wooooo banners :D Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 00:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Global contribution

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)

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)

Against vandalism. Gadir (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

User:Indian Journalist President

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

UPE = undisclosed paid editing. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 17:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

How did you figured that out? Never seen him mention that Trade (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

When multiple sockpuppet accounts write articles about living people that use fake and clearly paid sources, make overly exaggerated claims, etc....it's paid editing. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 13:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Russian language

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

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)

Requests for comment/Global ban for Бучач-Львів

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Central Academy School

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)

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)

Thanks, sorry for my zeal. -- Jeff G. ツ (please ping or talk to me) 15:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

Special:ListGroupRights#steward

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? 185.116.4.213 00:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Loverman Kingdom

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)

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

Request for global lock

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. 1.47.136.70 03:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Amendment to block rationale

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)

Done, sorry about that :-) Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 17:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

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)