User talk:Vermont

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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)Reply[reply]


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

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

"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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]


Hi Vermont,

I saw your post at User talk:AmandaNP and since this matter concerns you more than the other stewards of the wmf, I came here to ask a simple question, rather than to relitigate a saga that has been going on since 2019.

What steps should Risto take to have their locked status removed? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I forgot to mention that I would appreciate being pinged when you answer. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ottawahitech, "stewards of the wmf" is not a thing. Stewards are elected by the community. The WMF is not involved in those processes. This has been explained to you multiple times, and you continue to say variations of that, for reasons I cannot discern.
As for Risto, if they would stop evading their blocks/locks for 6-12 months and would send in an appeal to the Stewards, that can be discussed with them. Vermont (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you saying that users who are suspected of sockpuppeering must wait 6-12 months before they are permitted to appeal? BTW thank you for pinging me. Ottawahitech (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ottawahitech, it's difficult to believe the sincerity of an appeal when the last time that person evaded a block/lock was yesterday. Refraining from evading blocks/locks for a period of time is a show of good faith and sincerity, and weighs heavily on the possibility of an appeal. It is not a set rule or by any means a guarantee of a successful appeal, but it is generally the advice we give people. After that period, when we know the user intends to return and follow community policy, we can discuss the issues that led to the block/locks. Also, it's not "suspected" in this case, it is quite clear. Vermont (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How important is it in your opinion to show good faith and sincerity in comparison to, say, AGF? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As in, should we just trust that someone is not going to abuse Wikimedia projects after having done so for over three years, rather than expecting that they would put the minor amount of effort to stop for a few months prior to appealing? my opinion the burden is on the person who has demonstrably caused problems for years to prove that allowing them to return to the community would not result in the same problems. Vermont (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is Risto banned or globally locked on Wikimedia projects[edit]

@Vermont: Before User:Risto hot sir became a sock they contributed 40K edits to enwq. It is not clear why they were blocked in the first place. Was Risto globally-banned or globally-locked? Risto's Global account information indicates that risto was locked by steward/User:Wim_b. However, it has been implied and also outright stated by Global sysop/user:Praxidicae that Risto has been banned. So which is it: banned or locked? Please don't forget to ping me. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 02:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ottawahitech, it is a global lock, not a ban. In the months leading up to the lock, Risto decided to try and increase their edit count by finding images and adding them to articles in dozens of languages which they do not speak. Though in some cases this was accepted by the local communities, in others the images were out of place or disruptive. Whenever Risto was asked to stop, they would quickly become uncivil and rude, and they were blocked on multiple projects for their behavior. Shortly after, Risto started creating other accounts to evade those blocks. Block evasion on multiple projects is cross-wiki abuse, and a lock was imposed. Risto was asked to stop multiple times on multiple projects prior to the lock, and never adjusted their pattern. If they had not continued creating new accounts, and had appealed and agreed to stop editing projects where they don’t know the language or where the local community doesn’t want them to, they could very well be editing freely right now. But instead we’ve had three years of lock and block evasion. Vermont (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vermont, thanks for confirming that Risto was not banned but merely locked out of wikimedia projects. I think what you are saying is that Risto was locked because someone suspected risto of socking? If so, are all suspected socks automatically locked out of wmf-projects, or are there others who go through a different process? Thanks for pinging me. Ottawahitech (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ottawahitech. Again, no. Risto is not “suspected” to have been socking. Risto has been evading blocks with sockpuppets for over three years. Sockpuppets are locked when found. Vermont (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
are there other sockpuppeteers who go through a different process? Ottawahitech (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not really...if someone is locked, and they create an account to evade the lock, that one will be locked too. Vermont (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vermont, sorry it appears my previous question was not properly phrased. Let me try again:
You said this in regard to Risto:

If they had not continued creating new accounts, and had appealed and agreed to stop editing projects where they don’t know the language or where the local community doesn’t want them to, they could very well be editing freely right now

So I assume that you believe the reason Risto was globally-locked is that they were determined to be a sock-master on several wmf-projects? If so my question is: are there other wmf-editors who were blocked on some individual projects, but who were not globally-locked as a result? Did these other wmf-editors go through a different Global process? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are tons of editors blocked on individual projects and not locked, and many blocked on multiple projects and not locked. However, cross-wiki abuse is not simply being blocked on multiple projects. In this case, Risto was only locked after evading blocks on 4 or so projects. Appealing local blocks is not a global process, and each project has their own processes for that. Vermont (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About Risto's lock[edit]

Hi, Vermont. I'm not familiar with this case and I just don't know how it works. There's now a new discussion on Wikiquote:Village_pump#Global_ban_for_for_risto_hot_sir? from Ottawahitech,
Worried about answering wrongly, though I have read policy on meta, I'm not further involved but I hope you take a look. Lemonaka (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the ping Vermont (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

question about your edits on the village pump[edit]

Hi Vermont: I will be responding to your reply at: Global ban for for risto hot sir? but before I do I must spend time on research in the meta policy documents. I don’t know if you know, but as a content contributor I do not enjoy spending time studying official policy and try to avoid it as much as I can, but in this case I seem to have exhausted the common sense approach and will have to approach it in a wiki-lawyering way, unfortunately.

In the meantime I have a small question to ask regarding your 2 recent edits at the pump. You have changesd the text from:

  • necessitated a global lock to prevent it


  • necessitated a global lock.

I am wondering why you removed “to prevent it” from your post.

BTW in case you are wondering how I found out that you have changed the text, I want to tell that I try to make it a habit to check page histories. It may be a practice that is unusual at ENWQ, but I do it after having witnessed enough so-called fake postings at the Administrator Noticeboard and other official boards. I hope I am making sense?

Thanks in advance for replying to my question, Ottawahitech (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ottawahitech, because I realized that it didn't actually "prevent" continued abuse, as Risto created more accounts. Vermont (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that "didn't actually prevent continued abuse", why are you continuing to pursue this prolific ENWQ-contributor? Ottawahitech (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had a feeling you'd reply with this.
Ottawahitech, just because someone evades sanctions does not mean the sanctions should be removed. It actually means the opposite = the sanctions are necessary. Abusive activities should not be rewarded. Vermont (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess what you are saying is that you do not see the merit of what I am trying to tell you, and you are not interested in pursuing my thoughts on this matter? Please don't feel obligated to answer if my interpretation is correct Ottawahitech (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ottawahitech, I do not see the merit of what you are saying, but I am interested in discussing constructive points. If you have some way to prevent sockpuppetry that isn't just letting the person continue disruptively editing from their original account, I'd be interested to hear it. Vermont (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have those "disruptive" edits been reverted?--Omissa Massimo (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Risto Vermont (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As you seem to be reading this...if you stop editing for a year or so, and agree to come back probably on the condition that you not edit projects where you do not speak the language (to avoid the issues that caused this), an appeal would likely be possible. Vermont (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The project is more important than someone's hurted Ego - so some nice and wise stewards seem to think when they have set free Risto's IPs many times. One year means the loss of thousands useful edits.--Ned Eden (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Risto global-locking discussion at the Village pump[edit]

Just to let you know I have posted a response at Global ban for for risto hot sir? I am posting this just in case you did received the ping. No hurry. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vermont - gone with the wind?--Ned Ali Laden (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]