User talk:Theleekycauldron/Archive/2024/May

WikiCup 2024 May newsletter
The second round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 April. This round was particularly competitive: each of the 32 contestants who advanced to Round 3 scored at least 141 points. This is the highest number of points required to advance to Round 3 since 2014.

The following scorers in Round 2 all scored more than 500 points:
 * with 707 points, mostly from 45 good article nomination reviews and 12 good articless about radio and television;
 * with 600 points, mostly from 12 good articles and 12 did you know nominations about coinage and history;
 * with 552 points, mostly from a featured article about the 2020 Seattle Sounders FC season, three featured lists, and two good articles;
 * with 548 points, mostly from a featured article about the snooker player John Pulman, two featured lists, and one good article;
 * with 530 points, mostly from two featured articles (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three good articles.

The full scores for Round 2 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 18 featured articles, 22 featured lists, and 186 good articles, 76 in the news credits and at least 200 did you know credits. They have conducted 165 featured article reviews, as well as 399 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 21 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed during Round 3, which starts on 1 May at 00:00 (UTC). 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 WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (,, and ) 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Re-notification
fyi, your moving comments around triggered a notification that I have been mentioned. I'm not exactly sure why, but I imagine you might get some queries from others on this. isaacl (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * ... oh boy. Sorry, everyone! no idea how that could have happened, i didn't sign anything... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

GalliumBot
Hey! I just wanted to give you a heads up that your bot seems to be acting just a little weirdly - not quite enough that I want to disable it from doing the rest of what it seems to be doing fine, but still a little unusually.

I have a DYK nom that Ravenpuff made a copyedit to while it was in a prep. As you'll see if you view that link, GalliumBot is logging that same change every hour. It also appears to be doing it with one other nomination by a separate editor. It doesn't seem to be anything critical, and I can obviously live with it popping up in my Watchlist, but I thought you may want to investigate. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As the other person who's nomination is effected, the hourly updating is getting very annoying, and the bot is clearly malfunctioning. please address this soon.-- Kev  min  § 19:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * thanks for letting me know! I don't have the bandwidth to address this for a little bit, so I've turned off the darn protocol for now. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Nyttend
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg JohnOwens · Killiondude · MelanieN · Nihonjoe

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Nihonjoe



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Joe Roe

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news
 * Phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship review has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including creating a discussion-only period (3b) and administrator elections (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as creating a reminder of civility norms (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the full report.

Technical news
 * Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration
 * The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed.

Miscellaneous
 * This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA.
 * A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
 * Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Capri-Sun
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 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 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)

Your GA nomination of Heckler v. Chaney
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)


 * Thank you so much, ! might just take you up on that offer :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Feel free to reach out any time. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the 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:

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)
 * 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

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


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

Oltrepier sent you an e-mail!
Oltrepier (talk) 08:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


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

Please go look at this
Can you comment here: User_talk:Bilorv/Challenges? --evrik (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

My concerns about Phase 2
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:. 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:. 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)


 * Hey there,, 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)


 * 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", . 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)