Stewards/Confirm/2024/Vermont

Vermont

logs: rights, globalauth, gblblock, gblrights | translate: translation help, statement

English:

Languages:
Personal info: Hi all!
This marks my second year as a steward, and I have become more comfortable working in a variety of steward areas, including SRG, SRP, CU and OS requests, appeals, and others. Aside from steward work, I am an admin and CheckUser on Meta-Wiki and the Simple English Wikipedia.
Since February of last year, I have been the stewards' observer on the Ombuds Commission. This is a new role, and has provided me the opportunity to support the Commission on investigations that would benefit from a steward perspective.
If you're interested, I recommend reading this year's Stewards User Group report. It is written by DerHexer, and outlines a lot of the changes, challenges, and improvements that have occured over the last year. One highlight is that the stewards email queue is down to less than 100 emails, from over 4,000 a year ago.
As a disclosure, I work for the WMF as an associate in Movement Communications. In that role I primarily work on Wikimedia Answers and the Diff blog. I am also currently working on a blog post series aimed at new translation admins who are unfamiliar with the extension, and hope to publish that soon :-D
Thank you for your time and consideration! Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 22:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

বাংলা:

ভাষা:
ব্যক্তিগত তথ্যাদি: translation needed

Deutsch:

Sprachen:
Informationen zur Person: translation needed

español:

Idiomas:
Información personal: translation needed

magyar:

Nyelvek:
Személyes információk: translation needed

italiano:

Lingue:
Informazioni personali: Ciao a tutti!
Questo è il mio secondo anno come steward e mi sono sentito più a mio agio nello svolgerne i ruoli in una più ampia varietà di aree, tra cui richieste SRG, SRP, CU e OS, ricorsi e altre. Oltre che steward, sono amministratore e CheckUser su Meta-Wiki e sulla Wikipedia in lingua inglese semplificata.
Dal febbraio dello scorso anno sono l'osservatore degli steward presso la Commissione Ombuds. Questo è un ruolo nuovo e mi ha dato l’opportunità di supportare la Commissione nelle indagini in cui la punto di vista di uno steward possano costituire un vantaggio.
Se sei interessato, ti consiglio di leggere il il rapporto Stewards User Group di quest'anno. È scritto da DerHexer e delinea molti cambiamenti, sfide e miglioramenti che si sono verificati nell'ultimo anno. Un punto saliente è che la coda di posta elettronica degli steward è scesa a meno di 100 email, rispetto alle oltre 4.000 di un anno fa.
Per informazione, io lavoro per la WMF come associato per Movement Communications. In quel ruolo lavoro principalmente su Wikimedia Risponde e sul blog Diff. Attualmente sto anche lavorando a una serie di post sul blog rivolti ai nuovi Translation administrator che non hanno familiarità con l'estensione e spero di pubblicarla presto :-D
Grazie per il vostro tempo e considerazione! Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 22:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

日本語:

言語:
候補者の情報: 皆さんこんにちは！
スチュワードとして2年目を迎え、SRG、SRP、CUとOSの依頼、異議申し立てなど様々な仕事に慣れてきました。スチュワードの仕事以外にもメタウィキとシンプル英語版ウィキペディアで管理者とチェックユーザーとして活動しています。
昨年の2月より、オンブズ委員会のスチュワードオブザーバーを務めています。これは新しい役職で、スチュワードの視点から有益であろう調査について委員会をサポートする機会となりました。
もし興味があれば、今年のスチュワード利用者グループの報告書を読むことをおすすめします。ここには、DerHexerがこの1年間の変化・課題・改善の概要をまとめてくれています。一つ見どころを挙げると、1年前には4,000通以上あったスチュワードのメールキューが100通以下に減ったそうです。
実は、私はウィキメディア運動コミュニケーション部門の同僚としてWMFで働いています。そこでは主に回答とDiffブログを担当しています。また、現在拡張機能に慣れていない新参の翻訳管理者に焦点を当てたブログのシリーズに取り組んでおり、近日中に公開したいと思っています :-D
ご検討のほどよろしくお願いします。Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 22:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nederlands:

Taalvaardigheid:
Persoonlijke informatie: translation needed

русский:

Языки:
Личная информация: translation needed

Tiếng Việt:

Ngôn ngữ:
Thông tin cá nhân: Xin chào mọi người!
Đã tròn hai năm kể từ khi tôi trở thành tiếp viên, và tôi đã trở nên thoải mái hơn khi làm việc tại nhiều lĩnh vực khác nhau, chẳng hạn như xử lý yêu cầu SRG, SRP, CU, OS, kháng cáo (bỏ cấm/khóa) và các yêu cầu khác. Bên cạnh việc là tiếp viên, tôi còn là bảo quản viên, kiểm định viên trên Meta-Wiki và Wikipedia tiếng Anh đơn giản.
Từ tháng 2 năm ngoái, tôi đã tham gia với vai trò là tiếp viên giám sát của Ủy ban Thanh tra. Đây là một vị trí mới và đã mang đến cho tôi cơ hội hỗ trợ Ủy ban điều tra các vấn đề cần đến góc nhìn của tiếp viên.
Nếu bạn quan tâm, tôi khuyên bạn nên đọc báo cáo năm vừa rồi từ Nhóm Tiếp viên Wikimedia, được viết bởi DerHexer và nó phác thảo rất nhiều thay đổi, thách thức và cải tiến đã xảy ra trong năm qua. Một điểm đáng chú ý là hàng đợi email steward đã giảm từ mức hơn 4.000 vào khoảng 1 năm trước xuống dưới 100 email.
Nếu bạn quan tâm, tôi khuyên bạn nên đọc Báo cáo Nhóm Tiếp viên Wikimedia năm nay được viết bởi DerHexer. Báo cáo nêu bật nhiều thay đổi, thách thức và cải thiện đã diễn ra trong năm qua. Một điểm đáng chú ý là hàng đợi email của tiếp viên đã giảm xuống dưới 100 email, so với con số là hơn 4,000 vào thời điểm một năm trước.
Tiết lộ thêm, tôi làm việc cho WMF với tư cách là cộng tác viên cho mảng Truyền thông Phong trào. Trong vai trò đó, tôi chủ yếu làm việc trên Wikimedia Answers và blog Diff. Tôi cũng đang thực hiện một loạt bài đăng blog nhắm mục tiêu đến các bảo quản viên bản dịch mới chưa quen với tiện ích mở rộng Dịch và hy vọng sẽ sớm xuất bản những bài viết này :-D
Cảm ơn bạn vì đã dành thời gian xem xét và đưa ra ý kiến! Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 22:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

中文（简体）:

可说语言:
个人资料: translation needed

中文（繁體）:

可說語言:
個人資料: translation needed

Comments about Vermont

Keep, one of our most valuable contributors. Giraffer (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Stïnger （会話） 14:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Amir (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 14:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Vituzzu (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep EPIC (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Fenikals (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JrandWP (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brilliant as per last year --Ferien (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --V0lkanic (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —MdsShakil (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Takes a very professional attitude towards their work here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. eXcellence ^contribs 18:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sohom (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Hey man im josh (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ruthven (msg) 19:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meow! LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 20:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 20:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ingenuity (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Always friendly and a great Steward. Prodraxis _(talk) 22:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely--*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 22:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
me when the Keep bottom text ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--☠︎Quinlan83☠︎^{(𝖄𝖔𝖚 𝖙𝖆𝖑𝖐𝖎𝖓' 𝖙𝖔 𝖒𝖊?)} 22:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Aca (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spicy (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --_USSR-Slav (СССР-Слав) (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ruy (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Mtarch11 (talk) 05:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Nehaoua (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Frostly (talk) 06:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with confidence --Tmv (talk) 09:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Lookruk 💬 (Talk) 12:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cyrfaw (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no concerns. -- CptViraj (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wutsje (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ocelot (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was unhappy with your handling of my WMF researchers request in March 2023 (with no real avenue given for me to appeal or give evidence on what I've actually done), but I'm not going to make a formal vote in your case. I do ask that you improve your handling of similar cases in the future; the comment is not meant as retributive but as feedback for you since it's challenging to contribute when issues like these occur with no useful alternative presented. Leaderboard (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requests for comment/Global ban requirements seems like a bad idea. There's a lack of lack of accountability, due process, and adherence to actual site policy in both local blocks such as on enwiki and in global ban RfCs on meta (generally speaking, not of Vermont per se) It seems unwise and unnecessary to make it even easier to globally, permanently ban someone. In the same vein as Leaderboard's comment, I intend this as public feedback and not a formal vote. AP295 (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback on that. I will note: it wouldn't make it easier to ban someone, only lowers the bar to start a discussion. The TL;DR of the concerns I raised back in 2022 are that some users' actions may necessitate a global ban even if they aren't blocked on two projects, e.g., off-wiki problems or project capture (like hrwiki) situations. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 22:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned that in the RfC and I'm not familiar with the incidents you refer to, but at any rate I think the Global Ban RfC process here is too casual, capricious and lacking in reasonable due process to bear wider applicability without changes. AP295 (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Sakretsu (炸裂) 22:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of professionalism and responsiveness to LTA locking Lizthegrey (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 07:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Last year, I was indefinitely blocked by Vermont on Meta. It seems reasonable enough to think that some form of block was justified. However, in that block communication on my talk page (User talk:Dan Polansky#Block), Vermont referred to Wikipedia non-policies ~~WP:BLUDGEON, WP:WIKILAWYERING, and~~ WP:SEALION (all essays) as if they were policies. It is not known to me that Meta adopted the policy that "Wikipedia non-policies are Meta policies". By my lights, the role of a steward (even more than that of an administrator) should require meeting a high standard of formal correctness and should very carefully distinguish policies from mere essays.
On a different note, the statement "it wouldn't make it easier to ban someone, only lowers the bar to start a discussion" on this page is untrue: if the bar for discussion, which it is not since it is de facto a mere numerical vote, is lowered, that makes it then easier to ban someone.
On another note discussed above: a capture of, say, Croatian wiki does not require a global ban. Other solutions are available. One solution is to ban indefinite blocks on a project suspected to be captured, limiting the block length to, say, one year. And that solution would be much more effective since it would impact behavior of all admins, not just selected one. Another solution is externally-forced desysop of Kubura (if this is what we are talking about): he would be able to contribute, but not harass others with powertools. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly for uninvolved readers, a clarification: I blocked you for violations of the Meta-Wiki civility policy, which is made quite clear in the block message: "Multiple users have raised concerns with your conduct, and you have done nothing but double down. I want you to understand that your style of engagement is harmful to constructive community discourse, and is not welcome on this project in line with our civility policy.

I linked to the English Wikipedia page on "sealioning" purely for a definition of the term, which I used in describing your conduct on this project. There was no implication whatsoever that it was a policy.

Regarding the "bludgeon" and "wikilawyering" essays...you brought those up, not me. They appear nowhere in that block message. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 03:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be my mistake (I may have been confused by messages directed to me in Requests for comment/Global ban for PlanespotterA320 (2)), and therefore, I have stricken out the part of my above response that is wrong/inapplicable. Vermont did use the word "wikilawyering" on my talk page in connection with my block, but not in the original block message. This is just a quick correction; I may post more later. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, your comments were uncivil and were rightfully blocked by Vermont. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 10:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. When I was vulgarly insulted/attacked in the English Wiktionary by two editors who today are administrators, that was fine; one of them got a month block (he also wished me death) and today is an administrator, another one did not receive a block for that vulgar insult, went on to vulgarly insult other editors, has hounded me for months on end and is an administrator who, in a desysopping vote after his repeated misconduct, received a broad editor support. But when I engage in the so-called "sealioning" (asking too many incovenient questions, etc.), that is "uncivil" and requires an indefinite block at the point at which my block log on Meta was clear (zero previous blocks). Ehm. --Dan Polansky (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Again I'm not familiar with the incident or the RfC in question but if I understand the grammar of his argument you reference on his talk page, he seemed to be making reasonable points. Generally there's a wide double standard and a lack of objectivity when it comes to enforcing rules. Users can be summarily blocked, often disproportionately and without due consideration, let alone due process. If one points out that a sysop or admin hasn't followed the rules, one is accused of wikilawyering and often subject to further sanction. This seems like a good example. I'm not sure that all of his statements were relevant, but by any reasonable standard a few irrelevant comments are not grounds for an indefinite block in and of themselves. While I don't see any breach of civility, I should hope truth and objectivity are held in higher regard than politeness. Again, consider my comments as general feedback and not statements on behalf of any particular user. AP295 (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "I should hope truth and objectivity are held in higher regard than politeness", this is explicitly not the case. Wikimedia projects are community-built, and maintaining community health means enforcing a high standard of civility. This misunderstanding seems related to your indefinite blocks on the English Wikipedia and Wiktionary, and I would recommend reading over the Meta-Wiki civility policy: its first section provides a concise, useful description of the necessity of maintaining civility on a community project. Best regards, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 17:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen several times how sysops/admins who've decided they simply don't like a user harass and bait them until finally they get irritated and angry, at which point WP:CIVIL is invoked and a block is issued. This sort of behavior is no less harmful to the project than impoliteness. I'm not saying you do that nor that WP:CIVIL is an illegitimate rule, merely that there's a double standard and that losing one's patience is not an unforgivable offense. Regarding my blocks, I think my appeal on enwiktionary, which has been ignored for two months, speaks for itself. I sense this could go downhill and so I'll drop the stick and leave it at that, having made my point. AP295 (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also point out that w:WP:SEALION is merely an essay. To charge someone with incivility while citing w:WP:SEALION is contradiction of terms, namely that "civil pov pushing" is "uncivil". Since an RfC is by nature intended to solicit others' comments, POV-pushing seems a questionable charge to make in that context to begin with. This isn't to say that pov pushing doesn't occur in RfCs but in my experience it's usually those with minority opinions who are accused of and sanctioned for pov pushing, regardless of whether they are correct or not. There have been instances where I could quite easily have accused someone of POV pushing but did not. I had no need to, because the substance of their argument was easily refuted. If I find myself temtped to avoid the substance of an argument, I usually take it as a cue to reconsider both that argument and my own position. This is the essence of my point and it's not always an easy thing to do. I hope you will take as constructive feedback. AP295 (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's a good point: Wikipedia:SEALION points to Wikipedia:Civil POV, and yet, "sealioning" is allegedly "uncivil" => a contradiction. The text of Wikipedia:Civil POV does not mention the term "sealioning" except in a link to Wikipedia:Sealioning. Then, Vermont's claim "I linked to the English Wikipedia page on "sealioning" purely for a definition of the term" rings untrue. A corrective action: delete "Wikipedia:SEALION" as an inappropriate page with an inappropriate target. Even better: move all those bad essay currently in Wikipedia namespace away from that namespace, to eliminate a whole class of maladministration. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct in that the enwiki target of that redirect is not useful in explaining the term. I should have linked to the mainspace article about it.

You are patently incorrect in implying that I cited it as policy, or that I based my argument on it. It is a hyperlink in the first sentence of a 9-sentence block message. Like your conduct in the arguments that led you to being blocked, here you continue to highlight miniscule details as though the entire rationale for your block were that hyperlink. It is not: I included diffs of your unconstructive conduct which necessitated the block, I mentioned the multiple users' complaints about your behavior, and I contextualized it for you in the context of this project's civility policy.

Last year you were indefinitely blocked on your home project, the English Wiktionary, for "Unacceptable conduct: continued overt racism...long history of obstructionism, disruptive edits and personal attacks, and refusal to change their behavior". In your Meta-Wiki unblock request last May, you recognized that your conduct on this project was unconstructive and provided assurances that you would change your manner of discussion. It seems to me like this has not happened, unfortunately. Regards, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 17:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My conduct on Meta was indeed problematic in some regards and I acknowledged as much, and I still do. But as for the above "your unconstructive conduct which necessitated the block": it is not true that it necessitated the block, since other options that would effectively solve the problem were available, e.g. blocking me from the vote page. My block message in the English Wiktionary, while to some extent accurate, is on the whole unsubstantiated libel, but I am planning no lawsuit; it is not allowed to do so unless one wants to be blocked. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should like to add that my behavior in the English Wiktionary did in fact turn problematic in January 2023, but I have later acknowledged that to the extent applicable. I was called "full of shit", "an utter thickwit", and "a complete pseud" by a person who then became administrator and my behavior turned for the worse. Whether there is any connection between being insulted and harassed and subsequent deterioration of behavior is perhaps for professional psychologists to judge. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Java Hurricane 11:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --.av gas 11:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Carlomorino (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meiræ 15:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Drummingman (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clovermoss (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ijon (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taivo (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very satisfied with their steward work. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 04:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No concern. --LR0725 ( Talk / Contribs ) 10:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing to complain about. --Borgil (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -jkb- 18:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hatman31 (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Theknightwho (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sennecaster (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wow, this is Squirrel Vermont!--Lemonaka (talk) 09:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Denis Barthel (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elli (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Kirk39 (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Zangala (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DanCherek (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Wolverène (talk) 08:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 13:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Laurent Jerry (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jan Myšák (talk) 08:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Harlock81 (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Helpful and kind. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 14:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --DARIO SEVERI (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Fastily 21:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.—Teles «Talk ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 14:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Draken Bowser (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vermont is one of the most profound stewards. Granted they even blocked me. But they communicated why in very clear and concise terms and answered any questions I had. They were fair in their dealings. I’ve never seen them make a rash decision and every comment is carefully laid out and backed by proof and policy. Da Lamb^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 18:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spielvogel (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great skills, excellent communication, excellent work, never holds back and is always present! Squirrel, with a big thanks 🐿 --Superpes15 (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 16:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Antoine.b (talk) 09:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep jdx ^Re: 10:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Jules* ^talk 12:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Wim b 12:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Fjmustak (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Atlante (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 🐿️ --❄️Mykola❄️ 00:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kizule (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darkhan 10:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Base (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --M/ (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Moneytrees (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]