user talk:theleekycauldron

This talk page is archived.
To browse the archives, press "Show" and select the month of posts you want to view.

2020 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2022 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2023 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

White to move, so it's leeky's turn – check back later! (last mover: CopperyMarrow15)

Capri-Sun[edit]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 22 June 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/June 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Heckler v. Chaney[edit]

The article Heckler v. Chaney you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Heckler v. Chaney for comments about the article, and Talk:Heckler v. Chaney/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Voorts -- Voorts (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, voorts! might just take you up on that offer :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Feel free to reach out any time. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins[edit]

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Increment cookie number at MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages[edit]

Theleekycauldron, thank you for working on WP:RFA2024. The number in the  at the bottom of MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages needs to be incremented to |cookie=624 after Phase II announcement. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrybak: apologies for not paying it forward! done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oltrepier sent you an e-mail![edit]

Hello, Theleekycauldron. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is "A few questions about RFA2024".
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Oltrepier (talk) 08:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I should have sent you an email about a few questions I'd like to ask you for a Signpost article dedicated to WP:RFA2024, which I'm currently working on. Please let me know if it sounds good for you... : ) Oltrepier (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yes, sorry, very swamped :) lemme respond right now. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please go look at this[edit]

Can you comment here: User_talk:Bilorv/Challenges#I_Am_Woman? --evrik ^(talk) 16:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns about Phase 2[edit]

You asked me to raise concerns on your talk page, so here I am. Thanks for listening.

You know about all the things where you and I have crossed paths in the past day or so, obviously. But I'll focus on the specific issue we are discussing where you asked me here: [1]. I get it, that you believe that Phase 1 established a consensus that a recall process will be enacted if the details can be worked out, as opposed to that it established a consensus that the details will be worked out, before determining an ultimate consensus. So, in that way, you believe that you are "not letting people relitigate phase I questions". That's what I understand your position to be.

However, you are the person who started the Phase 1 and Phase 2 reform process, and you have assumed the role of facilitator (and you are doing it, at least in part, in your capacity as an admin). There's a difference between keeping the discussion focused on what is on the table for Phase 2, and limiting legitimate discussion of concerns. When I and other editors have raised concerns, you have taken the posture of arguing that those concerns are wrong, which is taking "sides" rather than just facilitating.

And here is what you, yourself, said at the beginning of Phase 1: [2]. In Phase 1, the idea is that most of the things should be trial balloons. I took you at your word, and felt that was entirely reasonable, and I assume a lot of other editors did likewise. These were trial balloons, not final proposals. If something got interest, but wasn't ready to implement as is, it would move on to Phase 2 for further discussion. There was no reason to believe that if something was determined in Phase 1 to have consensus in principle, but needed further discussion in Phase 2, Phase 2 would automatically yield something that would become policy. Editors who commented in Phase 1 likely understood Phase 1 the way you described it at the time, and the way that I understood what you said.

The Phase 1 close for Proposals 16 et al. contained multiple caveats: "the process(es) for initiating an RRFA needs to be worked out in more detail before this is implemented", the "if any" that you and I have already discussed, "this is not necessarily a sign of broad consensus". That being the case, I think there is room in Phase 2 for editors to make the case for other ways besides a recall petition to initiate the process. There was not a finding of consensus for recall petitions, per se. There was a rough consensus that the community should be able to compel an administrator to make a re-request for adminship (RRFA) in order to retain their administrator rights. It's not clear to me that this is a final consensus that precludes an RRFA being ordered by ArbCom after hearing a case brought to ArbCom by the community.

Let's look at what I actually said. I said that it would be a good idea for proponents to develop arguments for why the particular proposal to come out of Phase 2 would be a beneficial thing. Although editors in Phase 1 discussed and supported the general idea, as summarized above, they didn't necessarily agree on arguments for why it would be a good idea. I thought I was being helpful, constructive, but it seems to me like you took it as an attack. I also argued for a final RfC for adoption. Maybe consensus will be against that, but it is a reasonable thing to discuss. What I think is very clear to me at this time is that other editors have been agreeing with me about the need for "none of the above". The energy with which you argued against what I said comes across as you opposing the possibility of "none of the above". There's still time to let that branch of discussion go ahead, and I hope that can happen.

You may want to look at WP:CDARFC, and my role in it, at the time. I'm not someone who is hostile to these kinds of proposals. If you follow links to the background of that, we kept the development of the proposal separate from the final RfC, and the final RfC was an up-down decision on implementation, with a lot more community participation than what happened in Phase 1 here. To my knowledge, that's how these proposals have always been done. What you seem to be doing here is unprecedented, and creates the appearance of pushing the proposal through despite objections. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Tryptofish, I appreciate your stopping by. You're right, I did say that phase I was going to be for trial balloons like props 3b and 13 – this principle wasn't heeded, and ultimately, I don't have the power to rewrite other people's proposals. I do wish the trial idea was followed more closely, but I can't retroactively impose the trial restriction on proposals that were never written or closed that way. Besides, "let's recall three admins and see where we are" is not the best game plan, I would say.

I guess what I find baffling about this is that I agree with this: If something got interest, but wasn't ready to implement as is, it would move on to Phase 2 for further discussion. But I thought it would be obvious that I never intended to design a process that did not leave us with concrete results. Regarding There was no reason to believe that if something was determined in Phase 1 to have consensus in principle, but needed further discussion in Phase 2, Phase 2 would automatically yield something that would become policy.: I just don't think that follows from the statements I've made about the process. As to your comment in which you said that whatever particular proposal emerges should answer your question: if the property P can be shown to apply to any arbitrary element s of the set S, it is true for every element of S. So if your comment is "whatever particular proposal comes out of this should answer my objection", my response is "an objection that applies to any arbitrary proposal in the set of proposals is a phase I objection. If you have a proposal that bypasses that objection, however, you should put it forward."

What I'm doing here isn't unprecendented – look at the 'crat clerking RfC back in 2015. The entire thing was affirmed piecemeal, not as a whole. Ultimately, what objection could you have that can't be addressed in one of these phases? What remaining question could phase III answer? If your criticism is "I object to all of the current specific proposals because X", my question in return is "okay, then what's your alternative idea to fulfill the phase I mandate and X?". If you think such an alternative exists, propose it! If you don't, then that sounds like your objection would have been better suited for phase I.

In the meantime, I'm going to focus on making sure phase II comes out with a workable something. If we really need to decide whether that something is draft or policy, I'd be happy to discuss after we have an actual something to haggle about. Or, I would encourage you to bring up the matter at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/2024 review and see how people feel about a third RfC. Please let me know if there's anything else I can address, and thanks again :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thinking carefully about what I said, and for writing a detailed reply. I understood your early comment about trial balloons to be about proposals in general. I'm surprised that you think I said or even thought that "let's recall three admins and see where we are". I don't think I ever implied that. I'm fine with you wanting a process that would "leave us with concrete results", and I want that too, but the question is when we really are at the point where the community has agreed on the results. Some editors may see a final RfC as too much bureaucracy, but I'd argue that "your objection would have been better suited for phase I" is actually bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake.

When I started the thread that questioned whether we should have a subsequent RfC, two other editors agreed with me (later, there were more opinions, going both ways), but at that point, you replied that we were "bikeshedding and nay-saying", [3]. No matter how much you say that you are simply focusing "on making sure phase II comes out with a workable something", that's just insulting and othering editors who are trying to make reasonable comments. The whole organization of Phase II for the admin recall proposal has been skewed towards a petition-based outcome, and I don't think that can be reduced to saying that editors who want an alternative are to blame for failing to propose alternatives in the "correct" way. Similarly, in the Phase II civility warning discussion, I feel like you have been not just a facilitator, but an advocate for certain options and against other options. That said, I'm glad that you and I appear to have agreed on a version of "your" proposal there.

Now having said all that, I also feel the need to say that I realize (with some disappointment) that the discussion I started about this on the proposals page has been trending in the direction of consensus against what I suggested. I recognize that, and I definitely want to respect consensus. After all, I proposed something like this a long time ago, and maybe I've underestimated how community sentiment has changed since then. So please know that I'm not trying to sabotage anything. But I am aware that there still may be a delayed reaction, opposing the recall process. I hope that if you take my advice to heart, things will go smoothly. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TFA[edit]

Today's TFA, Felix M. Warburg House, was written by Vami_IV and Epicgenius, introduced: "This article is about another of the great houses that once lined Fifth Avenue in New York. Specifically, this is the mansion of Felix M. Warburg, a Jewish financier who ignored fears of anti-Semitic reprisal to his decided to build himself a big Gothic manor in the middle of New York City. Although the Warburgs no longer remain, their legacy does: the museum is now the home of the Jewish Museum (Manhattan) and the building largely survives as they left it. It's a beautiful building and I hope you will all enjoy it."! - in memory -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]