Open main menu

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 at vermont@vtwp.org. Thank you.

Contents


Digi It FoundationEdit

Hi, Vermont Digit It Foundation is a user group am creating for the wikimedia community in my country. I have applied for a user group affiliation and I was told to create a metawiki page in my application if I want to have a user group. Please if I am at the wrong place your assistance would be very good but anyway you can checkout Wikimedia User Group page. Thanks (Jwale2 (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC))

Thank you for the clarification. Vermont (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

About the Counter-Vandalism Training UnitEdit

I am very sorry to have to tell you this, but my account has been indefinitely blocked on Wikipedia for being a sockpuppet. So I guess that means that we won't be able to continue the CVU training. I want to thank you for your willingness to train me, and I'm sorry it didn't work out. Maybe someday I will be able to get my original account, Sierpnia, back and I can restart the training then. Have a great holiday season. Sei Noelle (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, and I hope you have a good holiday as well. As you haven’t worked in a number of months (from what it looks like), you may be able to appeal by contacting stewards. Vermont (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I e-mailed them last night. I don't know how long it will be before they reply bqck, but I hope they say yes. Sei Noelle (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Vermont/SE/2019Edit

Hey, hope this guide will be developed well, all the best, will be useful for new voters like us. For a moment I thought you are running for steward. I will support wholeheartedly if you do so. Thanks and Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Cohaf, thanks! Yeah, it’s just a guide; I have no intention of running. Being that I converse and contribute with stewards so often I thought it beneficial to create one. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Will be helpful to those who don't. All the best!--Cohaf (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

CUEdit

Hi, I think I will comment here, rather than causing that to be longer. I think this and the underlying issues are complex, if I have the time I'll drop you a mail. Since there is a block issued and there is an unblock request, and since is something from my homewiki, I am still quite shocked and will not comment further and let the sysops here handle it. Best Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Cohaf, thanks for your comment. I’m not fully informed on the whole situation and past events, but what I saw today on SRCU was inflammatory and unacceptable. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I'll email you soon, if I can find time as I'm quite busy cross wiki and IRL, I'm sure you too. Abstain from further comments but meta:urbanity is something I'll always uphold when editing here, but I can't speak for others. Best Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

simple english version of this stuffEdit

noted your main contributions are to simple english. Do you have any advice as to how to proceed there? which policies should i read first? again thanks for your help :) E.3 (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It's a highly complex essay-like article. It would take a lot of work to get it ready for simplewiki, and even then it may not be kept as it's not something people can reliably, neutrally write about. The article nearly has a thesis; it reads like an essay and selectively picks sources. I don't believe subjects like this, comparing two things in this manner, are encyclopedic. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

ProcessEdit

Go through all the previously closed RFCs; there is no such requirement. Common sense and all that. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 05:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

If there is no administrative action to be taken, and the decision is nothing, then it is reasonable for a moribund request from comment to be closed by an experienced person without an interest. Someone can always dispute and revert.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Odd, I remember reading somewhere that RfC's should only be closed by meta admins and stewards. Also not sure how common sense plays into this. If there are no written closing guidelines for RfC's, we should probably have an RfC to decide them. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Because of global ban policy which is actually not a policy at all for me billinghurst see this File:Global-bans-process-workflow.svg, per Global bans, I feel weird why meta admins can decide global bans, and I think we should relegate this completely to Stewards, and yes, I also think the normal RFC should also be closed by stewards, not meta Admins, I need more input about this, as I may be wrong.--AldnonymousBicara? 11:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
You may have missed the "no administrative action", "nothing decision", and "moribund" components of my answer. RFCs have always have componentry, and never been enforceable decisions upon stewards. There has always been that sense here, especially with regard to the complexity of language.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Ahaaa, I suppose we should follow that kind of exception, rather than sticking to the over-bureaucracy per that image. I do have a question though billinghurst if the almost dead RFC is closed by non meta admins or stewards but then the closing is contested by another user, what should we do?--AldnonymousBicara? 11:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
When anyone disputes a close or action it should get reviewed, first by the closer, and they can always flick pass it to someone else. It becomes an open RFC, and we can apply our processes. I like the application of reason and sense and binary.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

Thanks for cleaning up after 125.166.92.190. What a pain. Now I'm probably on his speed dial for the next month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank whoever made that abuse filter! If it didn't get blocked for that 2 hours we'd still be waiting for an admin or for them to get bored. Vermont (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear Administrator!Edit

Deutsch | English | español | français | italiano | 한국어 | Nederlands | português | русский | edit

Congratulations, Vermont! You now have the rights of an administrator on Meta-Wiki. Please take a moment to read the Meta:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat, and Meta:Requests for deletion, but also Talk:Spam blacklist and Talk:Interwiki map), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings, or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care. Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-adminconnect. You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading although it doesn't always completely apply here at Meta. Please also check or add your entry to Meta:Administrators#List of administrators and the Template:List of administrators. You're also allowed to subscribe the metawiki admins private mailing list. Again, congratulations and welcome to the team. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Congrats. :) --Cohaf (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Vermont".