User talk:Worm That Turned/Archive 37

Page move restriction
What view do you have on lifting the page move restriction, in whole or part? At Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 107 it was suggested by SilkTork if only 5% of my RMs were unsuccessful they would be happy to remove the restriction, I then pointed out that that standard RM (as opposed to RMT) is for moves that need discussion rather than uncontroversial moves, SilkTork then suggested using RMT and if 95% of the time the page mover agrees that would be good evidence. In 2022 I've probably made hundreds or RMT requests and while a few have ended up being discussed I can't think of any that were closed as "not moved" or even "no consensus". There was 1 Dent, Cumbria that was later reverted and County Borough of Southend on Sea that ended up being moved back to a similar title (though the move was previously discussed) apparently because the user didn't understand the difference between a district and a district council. I asked Amakuru about lifting the restriction only for allowing me to close RM discussions which they didn't think was a good idea, see User talk:Amakuru which should be taken into account if this is suggested. Do you support lifting the restriction in whole or part perhaps with 1RR or 0RR? I'm not going to push for this but do you think its a good idea especially given it doesn't appear based on RMT that there are problems with my page moves.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Question about blockquotes
Primefac has recently deleted all of my blockquotes from 23 articles — claiming copyright violation. I suggest that this allegation of copyright violation is nonsense. My blockquotes might be style failures — but I suggest that the blockquotes are definitely not copyright violations. Do you agree with Primefac? Suslindisambiguator (talk)
 * Hi @Suslindisambiguator. The fact is, published text can only be directly quoted under fair use. It's much easier to be able to describe fair use with regard to images (as I used to do with my old Copyright adoption course), but the principles are the same - you should only use a quote when no other option will do. If you can describe something in your own words, you should do that. In Wikipedia style, we would put a quote into context before or after using it. Looking at some of these quote usages, I can see why they were deleted as copyright violations, such as Henry Winston Newson where it's clear that it was simple cut and pastes of biographical information which could have easily been put into your own words. So, I'm afraid, yes, in that case I do agree it is a copyright violation. I haven't gone into each and every one, but I think you would do better to focus on writing things fresh and staying away from quotes. WormTT(talk) 19:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your opinion. How can I see the deleted blockquotes? I did not save the originals. Suslindisambiguator (talk) Suslindisambiguator (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Suslindisambiguator You cannot as you are not an admin. And since they have been deleted as copyright violations, they're not generally eligible to be passed back to you. WormTT(talk) 07:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Why cannot the deletions be restored and then the entire article be moved to draftspace? Suslindisambiguator (talk) Suslindisambiguator (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The blocks of text do not meet fair use, which means they cannot be published on Wikipedia due to copyright. Moving them to the draft space is publishing them. WormTT(talk) 08:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

YGM
Barkeep49 (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Request for nomination as an Administrator
I hereby request you to evaluate me and my chances of becoming a Wikipedia admin. I mostly use my mobile phone to make edits since i usually make them while on the go. If you find my edits and request okay, please nominate me. Thanks Alvinategyeka (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you read WP:RFAADVICE you will find that Wikipedia expects far more than you realize, and that you will not be an admin here. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 17:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @Alvinategyeka and thanks for coming by to ask about becoming an admin. I'm afraid Chris is right, above, at present you would not pass an a request for Adminship. The community expects our administrators to have a long tenure, with many thousands of edits, simply to prove that they have good knowledge of the policies and procedures of our encyclopedia, as well as a good understanding of our culture. That said, you're doing a great job at what you are doing, so can I suggest you take a look at my magic formula on how to become and keep doing what you're doing. WormTT(talk) 08:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Actually its not that am soo interested in becoming an Admin, i can wait for more years.
 * I was just angered by some Admins who abuse efforts of editors. I just thought maybe there is more that can be done in terms of havimg editors from across the devide. Admins outside Africa look at things very differently. But my hope is, one time we shall have more Admins from Africa. Alvinategyeka (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Alvinategyeka I would love to see more admins from Africa, certainly, and if you know of any long term editors from Africa who you believe could make a good administrator, can I suggest you use the Administrators without tools process. I do my best to stop admins abusing the efforts of editors, and the vast majority of admins don't do that at all. At any rate, my talk page is always open - even if I'm sometimes a little slow at replying myself! <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Waiting on ANI
I had been mentally composing a reply to the comment of yours that you were waiting on ANI but haven't had a chance to read all of the statements which I'd want to make so I could make a single statement myself. Since you've now acknowledged that this wait I figured I'd come here. I think the idea that ArbCom needed to wait for ANI in this situation is too cautious to the point of being wrong. The community has clearly decided time and time again that it wants ArbCom and Arbcom alone to decide whether someone is a sysop. This means any community discussion at ANI about the block and other sanctions should run in parallel to an ArbCom decision on the matter of sysop. Personally it's my opinion that the block should be fairly easily reversible. That is Athaenara could say "While I don't apologize for the idea or the concerns I expressed, I was wrong to direct this at another editor and was doubly wrong for doing so at RfA. I apologize for both those actions and will not do it again". In that case she should be unblockable. But even in that scenario it wouldn't mean she is fit to remain a sysop. I think your note that you want to wait for her to make a statement - and encouraging Ritchie not to revoke TPA so that can happen - is an entirely different matter and quite the appropriate thing to wait for. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @Barkeep49. The reason I wanted to wait for ANI was simple. It allowed the community the chance to review the indefinite block. I was aware that it wouldn't take much time to do that, because there was an Arbcom case open, and Arbcom generally supersedes ANI, leading the latter to be closed. So, by putting in that wait, I was expecting under 12 hours to see if the community would overturn or if it would end up in a place where this really becomes a procedural issue.
 * If the community had overturned, I would still want to be considering the sysop at a full case. As it is, I believe that we should looking at a motion that simply removes the bit, and allows for a case at the subject's request (similar to a Level 2). I'm also willing to hear what she has to say for herself, as per level 2.
 * I don't believe I was being cautious - but I was allowing time to see which way was the best to proceed. Does that make sense? <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 19:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No more sense than it did before so let me as a question that will maybe help me understand. The community has decided to leave the block. That seems to have zero impact on what you think should happen next. Let's say the block had been overturned. What impact would that have had for you on the merits of whether or not she should be an admin (which is what ArbCom and only Arbcom can decide)? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Barkeep49 I believe the difference is simply between an expedited case and a desysop by motion. The community is clear on what should be happening, we have the evidence (unless something else is brought to light by the subject) so there is little left to be said, besides a simple motion to desysop. If there was confusion amongst the community, a more detailed case would be required, because the entire process and decision is helpful for the community. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 19:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is that you needed to hear more from the community? For me the ability of the community to leave statements at the case request are the chance for the community to weigh in on how ArbCom should handle the case. In fact at ARC you can get direct statements about which outcome is right rather than having to make an inference by the reaction at ANI. In many circumstances waiting for an ANI thread to close is the right decision - see the BHG case request as an obvious (semi-)recent prominent example but not all circumstances. I am suggesting what the community had to handle - what if anything to do about the block - is a different question with a different answer (and thought process) than what arbcom had to answer - what if anything to do about her sysop rights. best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Allow me to intrude. When an account acts so strangely that multiple people think it has been compromised, whether or not that is true, it's good reason to revoke sysop access immediately. A deliberate process can occur afterwards to confirm that whatever has gone wrong will not go wrong again, and to decide whether or not to restore sysop access.  I think this would be a good step to take in the present case. I am friends with both Athaenara and the target of her remarks. This is so disappointing... Jehochman Talk 03:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that, @Jehochman. Historically, yes, that was absolutely true, but in the past few years safeguards were put in place. Compromised accounts are now globally locked, which means they cannot even be logged into their account. Non-compromised accounts can be blocked, and while blocked, they cannot use their admin user rights. As such, there is less urgency on immediate revocation and more on taking the right action <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 07:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t mind if people disagree. What I’m saying is that if there’s any doubt as to whether a user is in control of their account, or if they might not be in their right mind, you pull admin rights first and ask questions later. When in doubt, disable advanced rights.  That’s the correct procedure from a cybersecurity perspective. Now, it’s good that blocks stop admins from self unblocking (they didn’t used to) but still this account could theoretically be unblocked at any moment by any admin. Jehochman Talk 10:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WTT is referring to a global lock, placed by Stewards, which supersedes local block settings and does actually prevent the person from logging in altogether. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 12:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Apology
I'm sorry if I stepped on your toes and acted in a way you thought was out of line. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you @Ritchie333 I do accept your apology. This was a very difficult situation and a lot of people were bothered by it. I do get what you did and why you did it, and were it not before arbcom, I would have even supported your action as a way to de-escalate the situation. Unfortunately, in the circumstances, you were also disenfranchising the individual, which is why I asked you not to. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 09:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Essentially, I mis-interpreted "If you want to stop feeding the wikipedia "drama", that is absolutely reasonable, and the committee's email is open to you" as you no longer having any objections. It's the age-old problem of text communication being easy to misunderstand and make incorrect assumptions, I guess. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, and certainly explains what happens next. I appreciate you taking the time to explain. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Collusion checks
Commenting here so as not to increase the temperature further—regarding "I have never seen a check for "collusion" in the past", there are (rare) precedents; see Sockpuppet investigations/Llywelyn2000/Archive for an example. I've never seen one outside the very specific circumstances of "there's reason to believe these people got together in the flesh to coordinate tag-teaming"; nor, outside that very specific circumstance, can I see how a CU could possibly be of any use. &#8209; Iridescent 16:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Cheers @Iridescent. I'll have a review of that, but as you say, it's not common! <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 16:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

AAU
Hi, I'm Clovermoss. Kudpung mentioned you as one of the most experienced adopters on the project here so I was wondering if maybe you had some thoughts about the process in general? I had a good experience with Nick Moyes a few years ago but I got the impression even then that the project was kind of... close to inactive? Looking at the talk page, that still seems to be the case. xtools indicates that you've been here since 2008 which is a really long time, so I was wondering if maybe you had a more long-term perspective on what it used to be like? If you don't mind, I'm a bit curious. Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @Clovermoss! I did see Kudpung's ping, but I'm so out of touch with the area of integrating new editors that I didn't think it was worth me chiming in. Kudpung's right, I did pretty much run the "Adopt a user" scheme for a number of years, and was largely on my own doing so back then too. Bit of a history lesson - but that was around 2009-2011, ADOPT was already pretty much defunct. I had decided to mentor someone so put my Wikipedia knowledge into a course (much of which can still be seen in my alt account's subpages User:WormTT/Adopt). I built a "lesson" based plan (based on Hersfold's before me), which users could read through and had a simple test associated with it, which explained the important concepts of the encyclopedia at the time.
 * How successful it was is a bit of a grey area. I'm not sure how many of my past mentees are still editing, but a few did take the concept of the lesson based HQ and re-use it. When the teahouse came along, we rather stuck with that - it fulfilled the gap between 1:1 mentorship and the (then) unfriendly helpdesk.
 * Generally, we do have a problem on Wikipedia, one we've never really solved. There is a technical barrier to joining which Visual Editor and this ReplyTool have helped with, but both have their limitations (I can't stand VE myself!) - but there's also the counterintuitive policy barrier. We use words that mean one thing on English and another in Wikipedian - and we just expect newcomers to understand. We have pages and pages of stuff you should read before you start, then encourage people to just have a go. As we're not homogenous, we have some editors who will get grumpy seeing the same sort of problems every day. It's a difficult balance to find.. and I get the impression I'm rambling! If you have any specific questions, I'd be happy to answer them. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 13:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I don't mind rambling so don't force yourself to be concise on my behalf.
 * Nick didn't really have a formal lesson plan, he mentioned that and wanted to make sure I was okay with that at the time. I didn't care. It's interesting to understand what he was probably reffering to, though.
 * As for newbie resources, we have a ton of help pages and templates and everything but it's not always easy to figure out where the information you're looking for is. It's one of the reasons I like Help button.
 * As for the new user mentorship currently going on, it's mostly one-off questions and you rarely get a response beyond that. I think that's why I started thinking about AAU in response to Trialpears comment... greater interaction, a more personal connection, etc. At least that's what it was like for me. I found in the talk page archives what I was thinking of in regards to the project being basically inactive for a decade at Wikipedia talk:Adopt-a-user/Archive 6. It's honestly nostalgic to read all that again.
 * Anyways, if you're curious, I've been thinking about a lot related to the newbie experience for several months at this point. If you're ever bored enough to read for hours, this goes into much more detail regarding my thoughts. I also have User:Clovermoss/Mobile editing but it's still a work-in-progress. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Urban v rural parishes
June article Blofield Heath, July Hunger Hill, Greater Manchester, August Charlton Abbots, September Menethorpe, October Oldbury, Warwickshire.

Something I have recently learnt is that prior to 1974 there were urban parishes and rural parishes.

Rural parishes functioned much like all parishes do today, they tended to correspond to "natural" boundaries, the boundaries were generally stable and they had their own parish council or at least parish meeting and thus would be inherently notable.

Urban parishes were more arbitrary and sometimes included tracts from what was part of a rural parish when an urban district was formed for example Sandridge Urban being a small part of St Albans district, most ended up being merged so that there was a single urban parish concurrent with the urban district but a few like in Woking still had 4 namely Byfleet, Horsell, Pyrford and Woking. Though the Woking parishes would likely be notable anyway as they are settlements it may be argued that those that were only ever urban parishes without ever having been rural parishes (or also being settlements) maybe shouldn't be treated as inherently notable though they did still exist for electron purposes and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 10 there appeared to be consensus wards are notable.

While there isn't a legal definition of urban and rural parishes the term can still be used for parishes that are formed in pre 1974 unparished areas like Letchworth Garden City and Offerton Park, such parishes are often controversial for tax reasons and end up being abolished, see Offerton Park and Letchworth but such parishes do have their own councils and would thus be inherently notable.

If we do at some point move my restrictions only creating former parishes we could only allow pre-1974 rural parishes. See User:Crouch, Swale/Warwickshire ( original version) and User:Crouch, Swale/Hertfordshire ( original version) for example, in the category 1 parishes in the Warwickshire one they are OS settlements and standalone settlements, category 2 is OS settlements that are OS settlements but not standalone settlements, 3rd is rural parishes that aren't OS settlements and the 4th is urban parishes that aren't OS settlements and thus maybe shouldn't exist. In the future this distinction may well be helpful to ensure I'm creating notable topics.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 22:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Restrictions
Since I have got on with editing for a significant amount of time without any significant problems what do you make of just removing the restrictions as suggested? As long as I have an editing plan and a probation period it should be OK? I think we could try this and it would save the need for anymore appeals. I think in 2022 I can be trusted to follow what's asked of me without restrictions but if not I strongly suggest easing the restrictions by article topic namely things like allowing only parishes.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @Crouch, Swale. As far as I'm concerned, your main restriction is around stopping you mass creating pages that do not have consensus to be created. In the last half decade, I've seen nothing that dispels that concern - we asked you to get consensus that the pages you wanted should be created, you couldn't - yet every change has been to slowly allow you to keep creating these same pages.
 * I will not support removal of that restriction <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 12:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to remove the restrictions completely that's fine but at least we should allow a specified on unspecified number of articles on a particular topic that we know can be created.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Signature reminder userscript?
Hi, I'm looking for the userscript that reminds editors to sign their comments, as mentioned by you at User:WormTT/Adopt/Wikiquette. ––FormalDude (talk)  10:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh, that's going back a bit @FormalDude! I used to use WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/qSig, but haven't since 2013! Not sure if it still works. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 11:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Only one way to find out. (Intentionally unsigned comment from FormalDude)
 * Or you could look at the history of the page - where you'll see it was blanked in 2017 for not following coding standards. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 11:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, duh. Thanks. ––FormalDude (talk)  16:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Christmas, WTT!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:#F6F0F7; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:7px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);;" class="plainlinks">Happy Holidays text.png Hello Worm That Turned: Enjoy the holiday season&#32;and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, The SandDoctor  Talk 18:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC) Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message From my family to yours: Merry Christmas, Dave! I hope that you have a wonderful holiday season. The SandDoctor Talk 18:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Mail call
ygm TonyBallioni (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

ARCA 2023
Even if you don't support removing the restrictions completely (something I think could be done with an editing plan to discourage me from mass creating short stubs) at least could you please support allowing a number of parishes to be created either as well as or instead of my 1 a month on anything, see User:Crouch, Swale/Motions. Please can I have 1 chance.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 22:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Bureaucrat chat - invitation to participate
The RfA for MB has gone to a bureaucrat chat. Please join in the discussion. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

hackers targeting persons that don't convey into their schemes
Who does a victim turn too 2001:5B0:4ED0:1968:74CE:44D9:B8E4:10D3 (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * That would very much depend on the location - but I would recommend contacting your local authorities. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 11:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

ARCA 2024
Regarding the complete removal per User:SilkTork in 2024 and the topics I'm interested in.


 * Civil parishes, are presumed notable except perhaps pre 1974 urban parishes. I should create all other than perhaps the pre 1974 urban parishes but I need to make sure the articles have sufficient content etc.
 * BUAs/BUASDs, are probably notable though some that aren't settlements may fail WP:GEOLAND in terms of "other areas not commonly recognized as a place are not presumed to be notable". I could probably create quite a few of those that are settlements.
 * Domesday places, most are likely notable but like BUAs they could fall under areas not commonly recognized as places, see Articles for deletion/Caldecote, Buckinghamshire for an example of an AFD. I could probably create some at least those that are/were settlements.
 * Villages, are generally presumed notable, almost all villages will have been legally recognized in some way at some point. I can probably create most of the few that don't exist yet.
 * Hamlets, are controversial, some feel all can exist some while others feel they should generally be included in the parish they are in. I probably shouldn't create many hamlet articles.
 * Islands, are generally notable unless very small. I could probably create some but make sure their notable.
 * Listed buildings, are controversial, at Articles for deletion/172 High Street, Elstow (2nd nomination) its been argued that all listed buildings are notable per WP:GEOFEAT and years ago I argued that all are notable but actually I don't think that should be the case. There are around 300,000 Grade II listed buildings in England and many don't have much sourcing/significant outside the listing so I'd argue that all should be included on Wikipedia but most shouldn't have standalone articles but rather as I previously suggested with a bot to have a list for each parish/unparished area like Listed buildings in Dalston, Cumbria. I would even go as far as to say I don't think most Grade II* listed buildings will be notable I'd I'd further say that while more than half of Grade I listed buildings are likely to merit a standalone article that they may not be inherently notable. I plan soon to start a discussion on this.

I think as long as I mainly stick to presumed notable/likely notable topics and don't create many topics that may well not be notable I should be fine.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Crouch, Swale. I don't expect to be on the committee for ARCA 2024. I have also made my position quite clear. You should not be mass creating articles. You should not be creating articles with "presumed" notability or "probable" notability - but instead only creating articles that you personally can establish notability and therefore write a non-stub article about. Therefore, were I on the committee, I would oppose any change to the topic ban, which I believe suits its intended purpose. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 08:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Crouch, Swale, I think it is worth noting that "presumed notable" means that if there are sufficient reliable sources attesting to the existence of a place that such an article will likely survive an AfD. There does, however, need to be reliable sources cited when creating an article. SilkTork (talk) 10:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * by "presumed notable" I was referring to topics that are inherently notable such as municipalities and species. As Notability says a topic can be presumed notable if it either satisfies GNG or a subject-specific notability guideline unless excluded by WP:NOT. If the topic is inherently notable it will generally be kept at AFD unless an exception applies. If the topic isn't inherently notable (or may not be) then generally significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic must be presented otherwise the topic is deleted or merged. My point about listed buildings is that despite the guideline apparently suggesting their notable I have doubts and that they would be better covered in a list like the one presented above or see Listed buildings in Helbeck for a small one (of which I created the parish-Helbeck) as 172 High Street, Elstow now does as I suggested at the AFD. Just remember per WP:ARTN that there isn't a requirement that the sources are currently in the article but I would make sure they were. To give an example of a place that would be inherently notable, see Stanwix Rural which is a unit with its own local government would be notable even if significant textual coverage doesn't exist but per WP:GEOLAND for places without that like Heavy Woollen District (see Articles for deletion/Heavy Woollen District) they generally need to pass GNG but even if inherently notable I need to create articles with reasonable content.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * All articles require sufficient reliable sources. That is the point which I am trying to impress upon you, and which seems to cause you problems. If an article is deemed to be "presumed notable" AND has sufficient reliable sources then it will likely survive an AfD as a stand alone article. If an article does not have sufficient reliable sources but is "presumed notable" then it won't be speedy deleted, but could be taken to AfD for discussion. Any plan of yours for creating articles must include a provision for providing sufficient reliable sources in order to save the community time and effort from discussing each article to establish if it is notable. I am not going to get involved with this issue any further as you have a way, Crouch, Swale, of eating up people's time for little or no return. I will not be responding to any more pings. SilkTork (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes all my articles should have sources that will avoid unnecessary trips to AFD/editors time upon creation.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Quick clarification on an Arbcom case
Hey Worm (yay I'm back again :) )

I had a quick question, so figured I'll just ask here instead of making a full statement just to get a clarification.

If I'm reading correctly, here you stated that Black Kite and suggested indef-blocking DBachmann (with caveats/until they reply/etc etc). But best I can tell, Floq did not make such a suggestion at the case request. Am I being confused, or is there another discussion on this I missed? Thanks.

Soni (talk) 12:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * On a phone so I can’t link properly, but I suggested that at the bottom of my talk page. I assume wtt, like all cool people, has that on his watchlist. Floquenbeam (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, that’s where WTT got his “thumb his nose” phrasing! I knew it sounded familiar! Floquenbeam (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Soni good to see you back! I knew I had seen it somewhere (and I thank Floq for pointing out where!). For the record, I've also seen JBL make a similar suggestion at the ANI thread. Am quite tempted to write up a potential community desysop process where Admins can block other admins with community consensus - and if it sticks for say, a month, then the bit is automatically removed.
 * @Floquenbeam I didn't intentionally quote you re the thumbing nose! I'd clearly read it and it had stuck in my head. G'ah! <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 12:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Happens to me all the time Floquenbeam (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "Am quite tempted to write up a potential community desysop process..."


 * Honestly anything in that direction would be both great and much needed. I've stated it a couple times before and I'll say it again, we need more community consensus based steps for admin accountability, so just that proposal seems to be a massive step up from just Arbcom enforced procedures. I haven't been back long enough to observe enough of the community, but I'd definitely be interested in checking out/being another set of eyes on such a proposal.
 * And thanks for the pro tip Floq, I now have you watchlisted as well :) Soni (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Cmt: Procedural community desysop
Worm, while I am (currently) opposing the proposal, I appreciate the thought that went behind it, esp. the exact way you instituted the 28-day period between the block and the desysop, which eliminates two potential flaws (need for a cooling off/appeal period; issue with blocks that are overturned or shortened) that a less thought-out procedure would have had. Kudos. Abecedare (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Appreciate it @Abecedare - I have no idea if this will pass, but I do think it's the way to start moving forwards in this area. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 16:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I composed the above before I read your reply to me at the RFC. I get your point and will have to think whether my "philosophical" objection is strong enough to stand in the way of a proposal that arguably will be an improvement in practice. Will mull over it as the RFC runs; don't wish to flood it (or your talkpage) with my every fleeting thought on the matter.:) Abecedare (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Abecedare my talk page is always open for fleeting musings, though you will have to excuse the staplers who might wax lyrical also <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 16:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Greeting!
Had i known you were in town, i'd've offered a pint! Those three initials always draw you to mind Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 19:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Procedural notification of additional proposal at an RfC you participated in
Hi, I and others have proposed additional options at Village_pump_(policy). You may wish to review your position in that RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Red Dwarf concepts for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Red Dwarf concepts is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of Red Dwarf concepts until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Former parishes
I'm currently adding population data, when abolished, coordinates/infoboxes and location information for former parishes, see User:Crouch, Swale/Former civil parishes to articles that already exist. Unfortunately very few of the articles have this kind of information already. If my restrictions get modified next year after I've created all the current ones I should then work on creating the category 1, 2 and 3 former parishes but as noted probably not category 4 ones. I got a bit behind with adding the data to former parishes due to checking listed buildings Commons categories but that's not largely done so I should be back on track. For my January article I requested Upton, Huntingdonshire history split with Peterborough one, February Prestwood, East Staffordshire, March Woolstone, Gloucestershire and April Hunton, Hampshire which are on my former parish lists as category 1 (top priority). I have also started an AFD at Articles for deletion/Kirklees, Calderdale for a village that doesn't appear to ever have existed under that name.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * AFD was closed as delete.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Woodhouses, May.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Long time no see
Hi WTT,

I hope you are doing well. A long time ago you kindly adopted me as a user when I was much more active on Wikipedia. Shortly after we started briefly collaborating however, I took a job with long hours and life curtailed my Wiki editing to a low level. I still use the site regularly though.

As I see you are still very active here, I wanted to ask your advice on a question I have. I'm a member of WikiProject Gastropods, and I have access to a large number of top quality marine life photos that a good friend of mine took. He wants to donate them to the Commons, so that many people can enjoy his photos freely online. However, he's not tech savvy at all and has asked me to do the upload them to the Commons and handle the Wikipedia editing side for him.

How should I go about doing this? Is it possible for me to upload them and then just attribute them to him? If not, I think there is no way these photos will ever see the light of day unfortunately if he has to do it himself. If you have any ideas on protocol in this situation, I'd love to hear! Antarctic-adventurer (talk)  14:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Antarctic-adventurer - apologies for the delay in replying, I am not nearly as active as I used to be! I would recommend he contacts the photo submission helpdesk at photosubmission@wikimedia.org. They'd be able to advice much better than I! <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 08:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi WTT,
 * Me too, life gets in the way :) Thanks for the recommendation, I will do so. All the best! Antarctic-adventurer  (talk)  17:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

IP Block exemption request
Hello @Worm That Turned, Please can you assist me with an IPBE for the following user. They will like to contribute to the African Day Campaign. Please do create accounts for the other users who have accounts on other wikis but do not have an account on this wiki.



Please do update pertaining to any issues associated to any of the accounts.

Thank you and hope to read from you soon. JDQ  Joris Darlington Quarshie (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail!
StarryNightSky11  ☎  01:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

July music
While today's DYK highlights Santiago on his day, I did my modest share with my story today, describing what I just experienced, pictured. I began the article of the woman in green. - Looking around (Mozart, Wagner, Mendelssohn), I believe that infoboxes are no longer a contentious topic. People debate, but without weapons, it seems. I have better things to do than participate, see? What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Listening to Siegfried from the 2023 Bayreuth Festival, third act, Andreas Schager as Siegfried waking up Brünnhilde. Which reminds me of this discussion. Was there anything in it demanding arbitration? - A few weeks later, three participants were admonished, - for what still remains a mystery to me? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Current discussion
Hi WTT, I am sorry to read that you are disappointed by me for not doing something publicly. I am willing to disclose the other accounts I was editing in the past if it is this what you suggest. On the grumble on the CU tool, I also believe the CU process can be improved and the discussion was motivated by this at least in part, but I am not sure if my experience is actually wanted.

I'd also give the participants of the discussion an apology for causing concern, but I do not feel so much comfortable in adding text to a page where I was advised to drop the stick. If the discussion is going on, I'd prefer that it would take place elsewhere so I can defend myself a bit more comfortable. If there is anything else I can do to calm down the situation, thanks for letting me know Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Paradise Chronicle As far as I'm concerned, you need to be squeaky clean, having been warned about behaviour in an Arbcom case and managed to get away with breaching our abuse of multiple account policies. Squeaky clean does not involve bothering the person who rightly called you out for that abuse, accusing them of harassment and from what I can see, trying to wind them up. My grumble on the CU tool does not concern you and is not related to the process, which you of all people should be leaving alone. Any further discussion of a block by the committee would take place on list, so I would suggest that if you want to say something to the committee as a whole, you email arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Or if you really want it all publicly debated, try WP:ARCA <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 12:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. I am not sure what is meant by winding up, but I believe this is not what I intended. Anyhow, I believe most is a misunderstanding and some clarification, either at the ARCA (which I believe is a bit a long way) or elsewhere might help. I'd really appreciate if I get explained what was wrong and what's ok. I don't want to edit and be transparent on my successes and failures just to hear a few years later that this was not allowed. If ARCA is the only way, that's ok, too.  Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and raised a motion for discussion. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 14:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll by happy to comment when I find the time. A site ban needs quite a preparation though. To make it short for the start, I'd like to see some evidence on my deception from wikipedia. I am quite an open supporter of Wikipedia and I have numerous diffs for that.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I only now understood deception, you were right. I tried to clean my account with my coming clear about it. Best regards,Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Pppery/Bureaucrat chat
Please see Requests for adminship/Pppery/Bureaucrat chat and join the discussion when you have an opportunity. Maxim (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Former parishes
I've been working on making sure, current parish, district, county, infobox, coordinates, most recent population and when abolished are included in the existing articles on former parishes, see User:Crouch, Swale/Former civil parishes. I'm about 3/4 of the way done and should be done well before I can appeal. In terms of evidence for lifting the restrictions this surely is good evidence for this? The fact that I have made these kind of improvements to thousands of former parishes over the years with no known problems seems that its unlikely for the few category 1 and even category 2 parishes that are still missing there will be problems with me creating them. In other words if in addition to the consensus that they are notable the fact that I have improved existing articles with no known problems suggests I can be trusted to create the remaining ones. Do you agree that this is good evidence?

June, Borough of Hove, July, Braintree and Bocking.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Crouch, Swale I believe I have been fairly clear with my opinion on such matters, but it's of no consequence. I believe it's time for me to roll off the committee, so I won't be there for your next appeal. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 08:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well I think I've managed plenty well enough with what I can do and its soon time to just remove the restrictions as I believe its both in the interests of the project as a whole and myself even if I follow advice on number of articles etc.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 15:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:RPPD inquiry
Hello, you page protected User:Mbz1 per their block in 2012. Wondered if the full protection was still needed, or if the protection level could be lowered to allow for WP:LINT syntax error corrections. I have extended confirmed level. Thank you for considering. Zinnober9 (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Zinnober9 apologies for the delay. I have reduced it to EC protection. Please make as few edits as possible and don't change the look / feel. Don't want to open that can of worms! <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 08:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries, had some other things on my plate last week and this wasn't a pressing issue. Thank you for lowering. I generally do well with getting all issues of interest corrected within one edit, but I do have the occasional double dipping when something unexpected and wonky pops up. Some fostered content issues, due to the nature of the error, do change how things appear spatially when they are fixed, but in general, I try to keep things as visually unchanged where possible. My adjustment here straightened up the image spacing to a less random fill pattern, but otherwise it keeps a similar atmosphere.
 * Hope you have a great week, Zinnober9 (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Your email
I have replied. Cullen328 (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

ygm
Hi WTT, long time no speak. Just flicked you an email, not in any way urgent. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your work on the Arbitration Committee. I'm sorry to read that you're stepping down, but I understand that life outside Wikipedia sometimes doesn't leave room for that demanding position. Hope to see you back soon editing and enjoying your time here. All the best, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks @BlackcurrantTea <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 07:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for all the work you've done to keep this place working!
Hi Worm That Turned, Thanks very much for all that you've done. Any time I've seen comments from you on a Talk page, or a Request for Admin status, I've always paid close attention, because it's always worth listening to your comments. I have only the vaguest idea of what goes on behind the scenes to keep Wikipedia working, but I do know how much we depend on people like you. Thanks! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Being an Arb
As you noted, being an arbitrator tends to be a thankless job. And deals with a whole host of responsibilities and issues.

What you agreed with or didn't is immaterial at this point. It's that you stepped up to serve and did so earnestly, offering your sincere opinion in good faith.

So, whatever it's worth from one Wikipedian - Thank you. - jc37 17:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Jc37 Thank you very much for your comments, and the barnstar below. I do appreciate it. It's surprisingly refreshing to open Wikipedia a few days later without the weight of the behind the scenes. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 07:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. Well deserved : )
 * And I can only imagine. Though with your past experiences, I would imagine that you can probably "read the tea leaves" pretty well lol
 * All that said, I think yours is a voice that will be missed on the committee.
 * I wish you well. Happy editing : ) - jc37 14:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have to echo what jc37 has said. Thank you for everything that you have done for the project and for arbcom, WTT. Keep in touch. The SandDoctor  Talk 16:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

RfA
May I be a sysop? I have read many policies and have no record of vandalizing. D o o t e d . (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Whatever you thought you read, you clearly didn't read WP:RFAADVICE. I am glad that you announced what sort of person you are so we know how to treat you. Other people are more tricky and it takes us longer to figure out. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:#00A86B; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:7px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);;" class="plainlinks">Happy Holidays text.png

2024 appeal
Soon I'm going to start my appeal which is drafted at User:Crouch, Swale/Appeal. Do you have any advice about it before I start? thanks.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not on Arbcom any more. I believe I've made my position clear - but luckily you don't have worry about that. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 13:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Inquiry from Clovermoss
Hi WormThatTurned. I saw your post at BN a few days ago and wish you well. I don't think we've interacted much, if at all, but I've definitely seen your username around.

Um... I want to ask if you'd like to chip in at User:Clovermoss/Editor reflections? I hope this doesn't come across as a selfish request, so please feel free to ignore it if you just wish to just enjoy your retirement. The reason I'm asking is because there's a forseeable future editing question and given that I'm asking a bunch of active editors about this, most people have said yes. I think it'd valuable to have the perspective of a few nos. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for everything
I wish you nothing but the best wherever life takes you next. I know I wasn't the best student; but I definitely had the best mentor. Barts1a / Talk to me 00:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You kept going and did positive edits Barts, I think you did a great job, and I'm sure you will again <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 09:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all the fish!
Mentorship and learning from you has been a real pleasure. I don't think I told you, but of everyone I used to know onwiki, I was proudest to know you. Institution or not, you were just a solid presence that made people stick around and like the Wiki just a bit more. Thank you for being kind and welcoming :) Soni (talk) 08:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words Soni. I do appreciate them, and I'm certainly glad to know I made a difference! <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 09:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Damn...
I'm sorry to see you go. Thank you for the years of time, dedication, and care that you've given to this project. I refuse to say that this is "goodbye forever"; instead, I'll simply say it to you this way... "until we meet again". I wish you nothing but happiness, joy, good health, and good luck with whatever future lies before you. Goodbye, my friend.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I will second this. I am truly sad to see you go, WTT. You are one of the best. "until we meet again"  The SandDoctor  Talk 04:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Just saw this. I add my thanks for your great contributions here and wish you the best for the future. Donner60 (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Just saw this myself. You've been great, and a real loss. You said that you were leaving because of being too busy, basically, and I hope and assume that is true, rather than the other reason. Well, whatever you are busy with, I hereby request that you enjoy it. Herostratus (talk) 03:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Donner60 @Herostratus @Oshwah & @TheSandDoctor, thank you all for taking the time to come over here and leave a message. I'm glad I made a difference, and I really do appreciate all the kind words left here. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 09:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you've left
You were, by some distance, an outstanding contributor to the project. I was alerted to your retirement by a mutual admirer. All the best, and thank you for the time you took personally to help me. Godspeed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Love the idea I have admirers! Thanks for the comments @TRM - I do believe you were worth the time, without a doubt having made a difference to the encyclopedia. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 09:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

February music
Music and flowers on Rossini's rare birthday. - A few years after I said that your edit for Beethoven was the one I liked best, that's still true. - Best wishes for what you want to do. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:40, 29 February 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, provides for the addition of a text box at Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
 * Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by and, 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, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
 * Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by, 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, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
 * Proposal 9b, initiated by, 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, , and , 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, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
 * Proposal 14, initiated by, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
 * Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by and, 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, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
 * Proposal 17, initiated by, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
 * Proposal 18, initiated by, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
 * Proposal 24, initiated by, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
 * Proposal 25, initiated by, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
 * Proposal 27, initiated by, 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, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see 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)