User talk:Vermont

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Vermont, and welcome to the English Wikiquote, a free compendium of quotations written collaboratively by people just like you!

To ask for advice or assistance feel free to drop by the Village Pump or ask on my talk page. Happy editing! And again, welcome! 1997kB (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Admins[edit]

Are there no admins here? Thanks for reverting, but that's only half the work. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Drmies There's 25. I don't believe any are online. I'm currently requesting a global block for the /16 at SRG, and I recommend you email oversight if you haven't already. (stewards oversight, there's no local oversighters) Thanks, Vermont (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I already have, but they're asleep at the wheel too. This is someone who calls themselves WhenDatHotlineBling, and they've taken an unhealthy interest in me. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Eww[edit]

You should really link to Central Auth instead of Global user contributions in your user page. Global contribs is terribly clunky. GMGtalk 14:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

It links to both. See “accounts in all Wikimedia projects.” Vermont (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Global lock evasion[edit]

Hi Vermont. Sorry to bother you. If you have a minute could you explain what global lock evasion is? I am trying to understand this edit. Thanks! ~ Peter1c (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Peter1c. Their edits to this project are made in contravention to an active global lock that has been placed on multiple of their accounts and sockpuppets. Their original account was User:Risto hot sir. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Vermont. Thanks for explaining this. In this case, it seems the edit is an improvement to the page. Is it OK if I redo the additions? Thanks. ~ Peter1c (talk)
It is not a problem, of course, but there is the hope that reverting his edits will deter him from trying to continue to edit. Vermont (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Makes sense. Is this a permanent block? I wasn't following the proceedings for block of this user. ~ Peter1c (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Peter1c, it is not necessarily permanent. Many editors whose accounts were formerly locked for crosswiki abuse have been unlocked after successful appeals. However, considering he is actively evading the lock and editing despite it, it is extremely unlikely he will be unlocked. Vermont (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@Vermont why should wikiqutiens who believe User:Risto hot sir is doing good work on WQ want to deter this user from contributing? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Ottawahitech, if your goal is purely to maximize the quantity of "good work" on the English Wikiquote, then you would not want to deter this user from contributing. However, if you cared at all for the dozens of projects that Risto made unconstructive edits on, or the projects whose administrators they ignored and insulted, or the projects where they are blocked from editing, or the basic policies that govern nearly all Wikimedia projects, you would not logically want Risto to contribute. Vermont (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
@Peter1c: Thanks for helping the WQ community understand why someone who is doing constructive work on WQ is globally locked by Stewards who are working to advance what best for the wmf-comunity. More at :User_talk:Vermont#"You_cannot_be_an_active_sockmaster_on_5_wikis_and_a_constructive_editor_elsewhere" Ottawahitech (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Rape of the Sabine women[edit]

Hello! I removed the image "rape of the Sabine women" because it has nothing to do with sexual slavery. An alternative (and better!) title of the painting is the "abduction of the Sabine women". --2001:8003:4085:8100:FC68:B6EB:2842:815E 02:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

2001:8003:4085:8100:FC68:B6EB:2842:815E, okay. Apologies for reverting your edit; I confused you with a vandal who commonly replaces content with "[[|thumb|]]", which makes the edit hard to revert by normal means. I agree that the image you replaced it with is more suitable. Regards, Vermont (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

"You cannot be an active sockmaster on 5 wikis and a constructive editor elsewhere"[edit]

Hi Vermont, I came here to try to quietly iron out the statement you made publicly elsewhere on WQ, but it appears that other wikiquotiens (or wikiquoters?) have already beat me to it. Since this is your talk-page I wonder if you have a preference of where to discusse it? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This is an okay place to discuss it. What about my statement do you want to discuss? Vermont (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
re: You cannot be an active sockmaster on 5 wikis and a constructive editor elsewhere
You have made this statement which appears to be shared by other admins/bureaucrats/global-admins/stewards/patrollers/developers (did I miss any title?) across the wmf-universe, I think? However, at least on WQ it appears there are some "regular editors" who do not share this view. Was the topic discussed and agreed upon somewhere, so that regular users can understand the rationale behind this sweeping statement? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure if it was discussed anywhere, but it is a matter of fact rather than an opinion. If someone is disruptively editing on multiple projects, we cannot permit them to continue disruptively editing globally because one or a handful of projects find their additions acceptable. To do so would mean one could vandalize dozens of projects while making good edits on a handful of projects, and avoid a lock. Vermont (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
@Vermont,why have changed the topic of this discussion? I did not ask about editors who edit disruptively and vandalize, I asked about sockmasters who according to your statement cannot be constructive on projects where they have not been actively blocked. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

In reality it is 150,000 useful edits on hundreds of wikis and only a handful problematic projects. Better arguments needed!

@anon: I think the statement you are making is that User:Risto hot sir made 150,000 edits that are useful for the wmf-community, but was blocked by a handful of problematic wmf-projects? Just trying to paraphrase. Please correct if you disagree. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)