User talk:Theleekycauldron/Archive/2024/March

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A barnstar for you!

The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
WP:RFA2024. That's the barnstarn.

I jest. I don't want to jinx anything, but to paraphrase a wise man, the very fact that we're still talking about RfA reform is promising. For getting this off the ground, enjoy this barnstar! HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh thank ya, HouseBlaster! And backatcha – thanks for helping open the floodgates :) this is a chance to do something real, I hope. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Seconding this, I too hope that something can be done, even though my experience has left me a bit disillusioned with that process. Hopefully something good will come of this, though I personally doubt that anything substantial will be carried out. Either way, certainly a brilliant idea and maybe we will finally do a major change. The Night Watch (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the initiative! Such a smart idea to go with trials for a phase I :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, @Femke! The Night Watch, I would also be pretty disillusioned if I sat in the seat of your RfA – I know the whimsy got beat out of me at my first RfA. But I'm optimstic that this could be the path to some real change for those who come after us :) good proposals doing well! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
+1 Queen of Hearts (talk • stalk • she/they) 23:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
  • On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Please undo your block of Dicklyon

Hello, Theleekycauldron. Several long-time users have protested against your block of Dicklyon, but I see you're defending it. In my opinion it's an unreasonable block for a fairly mild comment. I agree that Dicklyon's earlier attack on GoodDay was nasty, and I reproached Dicklyon for it at the time; perhaps I should have blocked. Anyway, subsequent to my comment, he got a block for it. A previous unacceptable comment, for which he has already been sanctioned (and has apologized), is not a good reason to block him for a comment about GoodDay being "obstructive". Please undo your block. Bishonen | tålk 10:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC).

Per my comments just now at Dicklyon's talk page, I disagree. The block was a good one. Editors have the right to go to WP:RM/TR and argue that unilateral page moves contradicting previous closed RMs should be reversed pending a fresh RM, without having their motives questioned and aspersions cast against them for doing so. If someone has an issue with a particular editor, WP:AN/I is the place to air that, not a technical requests venue.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
(Non-blocked editor or blocking admin comment) The fact that several supporters users have appeared at their talk, must be unsurprising to say the least. Critics—perceived opponents—are surely liable to be accused of gravedancing or merely reverted. If the discussion was elsewhere, other opinions might be heard. AN or that other page, perhaps. Unfortunately they always say the right thing (e.g. this to Vanamonde93, or this to The Wordsmith, etc) and then do a complete reversement. That's what needs to be addressed. ——Serial 13:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
"The fact that several supporters users have appeared at their talk, must be unsurprising to say the least." Bad-faith aspersion. "Critics—perceived opponents—are surely liable to be accused of gravedancing or merely reverted." Several "perceived opponents" have posted at Dicklyon's talk page. Their motives as well as their posts have been left alone. More bad-faith aspersions. Where is this admin's decorum-based sensitivity now? Primergrey (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Read the timestamps, Canadian Male (is that a boast?) ——Serial 01:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Might I suggest, at the very least, posting this for review on AN? I wouldn't have placed this block, but I think it's an open question whether the community supports it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Amakuru; this is a totally reasonable block considering the circumstances. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I also concur fully with this block. Dicklyon needs to stop making personal remarks about GoodDay, and evidently this lesson was not learned through the prior block. These capitalization disputes provoke a lot of controversy (with very little payoff in return). LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
@Bishonen et al.: Goodness, quite the stir to wake up to :) first things first: I've read through the criticisms of my action carefully, and on the balance, I do still think that my block of Dicklyon was justified. Accusing another editor of acting in arbitrary bad faith in a forum not suited to process that claim is not constructive, and not something we should expect editors to deal with. Legitimate grievances about another editor's conduct should be posted in the appropriate place and manner such that it can be constructively actioned upon, not vented to the atmosphere. That said, my opinion is certainly not the end of the discussion. Vanamonde's suggestion of an AN review, for one, is a good idea. I might prefer to settle the matter out of court, as it were – if Dicklyon were to file an unblock request (ranging from an "actual innocence" appeal to reversal), I would be happy to consult with unblocking admin on shortening to time served. If a consensus can't be reached that way, an AN review would be appropriate. Alternatively, I'm considering shortening to 24 hours, whether an appeal is filed or not, but I'd rather the other option. Cheers! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Well, if you want all that action and consensus-building and consideration before going to AN, the block is likely to run out first. IMO the best and most straightforward thing would be to post there right away. Well, actually, the best thing would have been to post it to AN/ANI either before, or instead of, blocking; you must have known it was a pretty controversial block. Posting now is next best. Bishonen | tålk 21:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC).
@Bishonen: Thank you for the guidance :) I've made a posting at AN. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Filing another concur with the block. Again, this is the fourth time this year that he’s been blocked over something relating to the capitalization issues (whether PA, edit warring, or otherwise) - these blocks are the only way to forcefully tell him to cool down his actions. The Kip 23:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
That's blatantly circular reasoning, an attempt to use a questionable block happening as somehow a justification as to why the block wasn't questionable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

RM aren't a bad thing

If I had unilaterally moved Major League Baseball draft & American Football League draft (for two examples) to uppercase, instead of going the RM route. It (quite rightly) would've ruffled feathers & any editor would've (correctly) gotten such page moves reversed. So... I wen't the RM route & even though the results weren't what I had hoped for? at least the RM results exist. Now, should anybody go to those two pages & ask why are they're lower cased? Well, the RM results will help show why. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly your point is here, GoodDay, but I was simply trying to tell you that your comment at Dicklyon's talk page was not likely to lower the temperature around everything. I don't think you were trying to deliberately provoke Dicklyon, but I would ask that you not leave that kind of comment as long as he remains blocked, all the same. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
My point? Going the RM route, would've been the best approach. I wasn't looking to provoke him. FWIW, he did ping me to his talkpage. Anyways, I'll not comment there any further, while his block is in effect. GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
It would have been the best approach, but not doing it wasn't block-worthy. Also, you're engaging in extremely false equivalence. If you had done capitalization moves on MLB and AFL drafts, that would have been directly against a very large amount of prior discussion and sourcing that conclusively demonstrates these terms are nowhere near "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of sources". DL's moves of the other pages, the ones at issue here, were after similar discussion and sourcing demonstrated that such phrases are also not consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of sources. So, your hypothetical is diametrically opposite the reality in this case. I find it hard to credit that you don't already fully understand this, given the depth of your involvement in these entirely unnecessary and unnecessarily heated disputes for several months now. They really are very, very simple: just check the usage in the sources, and apply MOS:CAPS. This will result in less capitalization on WP than in some sports publications, but everyone knows this already, and accepts it other than a handful of resistant holdouts. If you think MOS:CAPS is wrongheaded and should change to say "capitalize that which is capitalized in more than 50% of sources" or "capitalize that which is capitalized in a subtantial minority of sources that are devoted to the topic, and disregard usage across English-language publishing in general", or whatever, then propose a change at WT:MOSCAPS (or even WP:VPPOL if you want, though doing the latter would get called hypocritical for trying to use VPPOL RfC process to effecuate page renames, something you vociferous claimed wasn't valid). Anyway, I have (for my part) advised DL via e-mail to avoid doing any more manual sports league/event manual moves and just use RM bureaucracy for all of them, because tensions in the subject are too high. It is better to invoke the long process (even without a P&G- or source-based reason to need it due to previous discussion and evidence), as long as the community seems to feel it needs it for feather-smoothing reasons.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Changing any MOS without a consensus, would not be advisable. GoodDay (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Theleekycauldron/Archive/2024. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.

The Kip 06:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 March newsletter

The first round of the 2024 WikiCup ended at 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February. Everyone with at least 30 points moved on to Round 2, the highest number of points required to advance to the second round since 2014. Due to a six-way tie for the 64th-place spot, 67 contestants have qualified for Round 2.

The following scorers in Round 1 all scored more than 300 points:

In this newsletter, the judges would like to pay a special tribute to Vami_IV (submissions), who unfortunately passed away this February. At the time of his death, he was the second-highest-scoring competitor. Outside the WikiCup, he had eight other featured articles, five A-class articles, eight other good articles, and two Four Awards. Vami also wrote an essay on completionism, a philosophy in which he deeply believed. If you can, please join us in honoring his memory by improving one of the articles on his to-do list.

Remember that any content promoted after 27 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Clarification

Hey, there. Thanks again for stepping up to close the RM. But can you clarify what you meant by "no consensus to move"? It's somewhat ambiguous and could be interpreted two ways. Did you mean that (1) there was not a consensus to move the page, or, in other words, there was consensus to not move the page (usually termed "not moved" or "consensus not to move"); or (2) that there was no consensus for either title, so the status quo was retained by default (usually termed "no consensus")? Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey there, InfiniteNexus :) 'preciate your stopping by for clarification. I meant the second option; there was no consensus against the move, there was no consensus for any option. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

A bot to check DYK QPQ automatically

Hello. I'm sure you're very busy, but if you have the time, I'd love your quick thoughts here. Thanks in advance. Mokadoshi (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, Theleekycauldron. I'm just posting to let you know that List of variations on Pachelbel's Canon – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for April 8. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 22:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

  • Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
  • Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
  • Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
  • Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
  • Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
  • Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
  • Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
  • Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
  • Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
  • Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
  • Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
  • Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
  • Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
  • Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
  • Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
  • Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
  • Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

  • Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
  • Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
  • Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
  • Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
  • Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
  • Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
  • Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
  • Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
  • Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
  • Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
  • Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
  • Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
  • Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
  • Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
  • Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
  • Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
  • Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Heckler v. Chaney

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Heckler v. Chaney you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Voorts -- Voorts (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

March thanks

story · music · places

Thank you for improving article quality in March! - I uploaded Madeira vacation pics (from back home, at least the first day) and remember Aribert Reimann. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for doing what you do. --evrik (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
@evrik: thanks! good to see you again :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of Capri-Sun

Congratulations, Theleekycauldron! The article you nominated, Capri-Sun, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theleekycauldron/Archive/2024/March&oldid=1217229465"