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)

I wonder how the two day discussion period would hold up[edit]

under an existing admin reconfirmation. For somebody the community has already approved. I was thinking of myself. I've held the mop for three years. Never been disciplined in my career. Would you co-nominate me? Let's see if User:Drmies wants to stir up the crap he started when he nommed me the first time. Would I pass? BusterD (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BusterD: I think that'd be a really interesting test! If you'd like to make it binding, i might suggest resigning your tools and maybe even waiving right of resysop, just to make sure the RfA is considered procedurally valid, since the RRfA procedure doesn't exist yet.

I'm not at all against nominating you – and if I were, I would still write a very strong support – but perhaps a reconfirmation RfA would be better served with a self-nomination. Outside nominators make sense for a candidate that needs help standing on their own two legs, but former admins at RfA (see Floq 2) usually self-nom. I think you'd pass pretty handily, although of course there's no telling with RfA. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a new RfA listed now. Let's talk to Drmies first and wait for a moment of slack. Worst that happens, I don't pass and I can return to pagespace again. BusterD (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a solid plan :) [I was mulling standing for reconfirmation myself, but to test out the admin elections process!] theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater, old friend. You're so valuable to the project. I haven't touched pagespace in two years. On the other hand, my off-wiki writing has never been so clear and focussed. My experience with Wikipedia has always been about personal growth, not accomplishment. If I were not to pass a reconfirmation, I'd likely go back to being a happy pagespace editor and reviewer and maybe run again later. I have no ego in it. Wikipedia is what I'm going to be doing as I get less and less mobile (no worries, I'm great). I take great pride in what we do here, and how the system of trust works on Wikipedia. BusterD (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like to offer advice but please don't be arbiter at any RfA right now. Trust your work to date. Remember that when people say or write stupid things, readers deserve to see the stupid in its original context. You should have eyes on the bigger prize which is to rob RfA of its self-seriousness. I was going to say stick-up-the-butt-ness, but I'm sure you get it. Very proud of you, bud. BusterD (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The new RfA looks promising. BusterD (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

" 'Support. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 13:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? What are we talking about? What I'm hearing is paperwork and procedure. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before the latest (and current) RfA, there was a bunch of meta discussion suggesting the two-day questioning-only period was a bad idea and we should end the trial immediately. Now that the new candidate seems to be weathering that period well, my offer may not be necessary. In the rarified air of only 24 hours ago, I was pondering giving up my mop for a reconfirmation RfA. And asking old friends to tell me how foolish I am. Swing away. BusterD (talk) 00:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BusterD: Thank you for the kind advice, as always :) you sell yourself short, I'm sure you'd have just as good a chance as me at weathering it. Empirically, we're both 1 for 2, right? :P Elli makes for a fantastic candidate to maybe break the current drought at RfA and maybe change the debate around this discussion period (kinehore!! giant khamsa, please?). Too early to tell! I am confident they'd make a fantastic admin. I'm sorry to hear about your mobility

but I'm glad it hasn't taken away your spirits, and that you have good outlets in which to write. I've got a year off coming up – maybe one of these days I'll see if I can't find a way to buy you a soda and thank you. Lots of love :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the civility... I hadn't thought of it that way :) I think you're a bit more old-school than I am when it comes to civility, but you're not wrong that striking is probably a more visible way of enforcing policy than removal, and it's usually considered less intrusive. Sometimes things need to go, but not everything is that bad. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June music[edit]

Franz Kafka died 100 years ago OTD, hence the story. I uploaded a few pics from the visit of Graham87. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).

Administrator changes

Graham Beards

Bureaucrat changes

Oversight changes

Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news

Phase II of the 2024 RfA review has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in Phase I.

Technical news

The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration

The arbitration case Venezuelan politics has been closed.
The Committee is seeking volunteers for various roles, including access to the conflict of interest VRT queue.

Miscellaneous

WikiProject Reliability's unsourced statements drive is happening in June 2024 to replace {{citation needed}} tags with references! Sign up here to participate!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Question[edit]

Hi leek! Long time no see, I hope you have been doing well! Been so busy with school and I never really got around to asking anyone formally. I've interacted with you probably the most through DYK so I wanted to ask who I would reach out to to get the 25 DYK award, not really sure as to whether you have the permissions or if I have to reach out to someone else. Regardless, it's nice to see you're still around, hope you have a wonderful day! Ornithoptera (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bestowed! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi leek! It's great to see you as usual, thank you so very much for the award! I hope you're doing alright on your end, I've grown to see you as a friend through the DYK process and I hope to see you around more often in the future! Ornithoptera (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ornithoptera: Likewise! I'm doing great – things are very hectic but I'm almost at summer vacation so I'm hoping to be more active then. Hope things are going well for you too! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I recently graduated from university so my activity dropped building up to that pretty much. I wanted to get back to completing some of the drafts I've been meaning to do for a while now, thus why I managed to crank out Bjarne Store-Jakobsen, Scybalium fungiforme, and Lapeirousia oreogena recently! Looking forward to bumping into you more at DYK and beyond! Ornithoptera (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early close for discussion only review[edit]

I do not think you are an appropriate closer for this discussion (iven that you supported the proposals originally and your close solidifies this position. There seems to be no reason this discussion could not have been open for a standard RfC length of time. In fact now that there was a successful candidate I was going back to the discussion to reiterate why I do not think this proposal is working or should be continued. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: I don't want to fall afoul of INVOLVED, but I will point out that if supporting the original proposal implies opposition at the early-close thread, I'd be at a loss to explain your vote as the creator of prop 3. You could easily argue that I was actually biased the other way by creating an avenue for discussion of an early close in the first place. In truth, I genuinely don't have an opinion either way.

As for timing, I planned to let that discussion run for a week because it's of an injunctive nature, not a full policy RfC – it's a basic check on whether the trial should be allowed to continue. It's not like there was a dearth of participation – 40 people weighed in, and discussion looked to be slowing down at the time of the close. If you want to let this run another 20 days to probably arrive at the same result and have someone else stamp that, I guess we can, but that seems like a lot of bureaucratic headache and a sink for editor-hours. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ask you to re-open the discussion in my original message because it's not clear to me more time would have changed consensus. But also the additional data point of Elli's RfA certainly does seem pertinent to a large number of the people who opposed early closure since we hadn't seen what it would be like in a successful candidate yet which is what brought me back to that page in the first place. So maybe it would have. If a suitable closer had given an identical close I would have shrugged and moved on. And I'm still not sure, given my own investment in this topic, what the right decision is on re-opening so I won't even write now that you should re-open the discussion.

What I did write was and what I still believe is that I did not think you were an appropriate closer for that discussion. Quite intentionally I did not use the word involved in my message to you. I do not think you are WP:INVOLVED in the way the admin policy defines it. I do think you are quite clearly involved (in the dictionary definition of the word) in this process. In fact you further point out why you were the wrong person to be the closer here, beyond my point about your participation. You were the one to actually structure not only the entire RfA process - which was not what I as the proposed of original proposal had done but was instead imposed after the fact- but the specifics of this discussion/decision. If you felt you had the authority "to let that discussion run for a week because it's of an injunctive nature" as a quick check-in on this part of RfA reform, you should not have have also been the one to decide what the outcome of that discussion was.

This is because you should not have been, in the words of advice on closing discussions, confident that reasonable (and even unreasonable) editors will agree that your actions are fair even if you decide that Personal opinions about the outcome, beyond wanting what’s best for Wikipedia, can make you an unsuitable closer even if you don’t meet the usual definition of being involved. does not apply here. Which I still suggest it does which is why I would never have dreamt of closing the discussion for the reasons you point out in your reply.

Further I'm not sure how I, or any other editor, was supposed to know that you had planned to let that discussion run a week. If you had said at the moment you decided to split the conversation about early closure from the rest of the discussion that "this seems like it should be a 7 day conversation given that a full conversation will happen if the trial continues to completion" and then allowed someone else to close it, I would not be here. But you didn't do either of those things. Finally, for the person who decided to make the entire bureaucracy and demand on huge amount of editor time in the first place, including hidden bureaucratic decisions like certain things will go for 7 days, to suggest I'm asking for a sink of editor-hours feels like a real pot calling the kettle black situation. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was coming here to ask that you revoke your close, because this was a genuinely ongoing discussion without a consensus. There's no reason to close this discussion so soon; it can easily go another week or two. Please reopen. Risker (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]