user talk:theleekycauldron

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

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

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

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

Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articles

In response to the referral to the Arbitration Committee of an enforcement request from the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard, where you participated in the administrators' discussion, the Committee has resolved by motion that:

Motion 1: Appeals only to ArbCom

When imposing a contentious topic restriction under the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic, an uninvolved administrator may require that appeals be heard only by the Arbitration Committee. In such cases, the committee will hear appeals at ARCA according to the community review standard. A rough consensus of arbitrators will be required to overturn or amend the sanction.

Motion 2b: Word limits

Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within the area of conflict. These word limits are designated as part of the standard set of restrictions within the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions.

Motion 2c: Word limits

All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. This motion will sunset two years from the date of its passage.

Motion 5: PIA5 Case

Following a request at WP:ARCA, the Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the interaction of specific editors in the WP:PIA topic area. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:

The case title will be Palestine-Israel articles 5.
The initial parties will be:
- BilledMammal (talk · contribs)
- Iskandar323 (talk · contribs)
- Levivich (talk · contribs)
- Nableezy (talk · contribs)
- PeleYoetz (talk · contribs)
- Selfstudier (talk · contribs)
- האופה (talk · contribs)
Aoidh will be the initial drafter
The case will progress at the usual time table, unless additional parties are added or the complexity of the case warrants additional time for drafting a proposed decision, in which case the drafters may choose to extend the timeline.
All case pages are to be semi-protected.
Private evidence will be accepted. Any case submissions involving non-public information, including off-site accounts, should be directed to the Arbitration Committee by email to Arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Any links to the English Wikipedia submitted as part of private evidence will be aggregated and posted on the evidence page. Any private evidence that is used to support a proposal (a finding of fact or remedy) or is otherwise deemed relevant to the case will be provided to affected parties when possible (evidence of off-wiki harassment may not be shared). Affected parties will be given an opportunity to respond.

Addendum

In passing motion #5 to open a Palestine-Israel articles 5 case, the Committee has appointed three drafters: Aoidh, HJ Mitchell, and CaptainEek. The drafters have resolved that the case will open on November 30. The delay will allow the Committee time to resolve a related private matter, and allow for both outgoing and incoming Arbitrators to vote on the case. The drafters have changed the party list to the following individuals:

The drafters reserve the right to amend the list of parties if necessary. The drafters anticipate that the case will include a two week evidence phase, a one week workshop phase, and a two week proposed decision phase.

The related Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy et al request has been folded into this case. Evidence from the related private matter, as alluded to in the Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area case request, will be examined prior to the start of the case, and resolved separately.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articles

For the ACE voter guiders

@Ealdgyth and Giraffer: I actually have 4 FAs and 2 FLs, not five and one! United States congressional delegations from Hawaii is an FL. Marked with a smaller star, very easy to miss. Sorry to bug! Ealdgyth, I hope to be available enough to answer your question tonight. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed now. Thanks for pointing it out! Giraffer (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Bohemian Baltimore

Hello, Theleekycauldron,

I was just reviewing cases at AE and I think you made a mistake in this one. You presented evidence against the editor the complaint was about and then you participated in the Administrator's discussion putting forward a view of how they should be sanctioned. By presenting a statement outlining problems, you were, by definition, "involved" and shouldn't have weighed in on the outcome of the discussion. The admin section is for uninvolved admins only (it states this underneath the header) and I think you should not have participated here. If I had seen this in time, I would have commented but the discussion has been closed so I'm just mentioning it to you here. I think you should keep your AE participation separate from your admin participation in the future. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Liz :) I appreciate your diligence on INVOLVED, and of course want to avoid any conflicts of interest in the course of admin work. If you're perturbed by the fact that I both made a statement (which is usually reserved for acting in a non-admin capacity) and participated in the admin's section, I can clarify: I'm not involved with Bohemian Baltimore in any editorial capacity and didn't introduce any new evidence. I only organized some of my thoughts in a statement because it would have been too unwieldy to put it in the admin section. All of the threads and diffs I cited were already available by virtue of other commenters in the AE discussion.

So, my use of a statement section wasn't me double-dipping, airing personal grievances against BB and then acting on them with admin powers: I was just using the statement as an organizational tool to analyze evidence that was already available in a case I'm not involved in, and using that to come to a conclusion on the remedy I thought was best. You can see in the thread that I commented in the admin section that I was going to use a statement to list out the evidence I'd seen and then did exactly that. I hope that clarifies :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, sorry. Technically, this diff (which I seem to have cited incorrectly at AE) wasn't cited by anyone else, but it's directly relevant to a merge discussion that was cited by Hemiauchiena and Andrevan, so I think that's within scope. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

rpa

Hi Leeky! I disagree that this is a personal attack, certainly in the context of determining if someone is a good fit for the mop. I reverted but I am too lazy to have a fight so if you disagree you can just revert again. Polygnotus (talk) 09:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Polygnotus :) I'm inclined to revert because I'm not sure why you disagree with me. I left my thoughts on JoJo's talk page; could you take a look at that and let me know your thoughts? Would love to hear you out. Thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Responded there. Please don't kill me if I misremember a book I read a long long time ago. Polygnotus (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe {{redacted}} is better for comments that don't pass the vibe check but aren't unambiguous PAs. Polygnotus (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus: Fair cop :) will be taking that on board for the future. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck

Glad to see you running for election. I hope you win!--FeralOink (talk) 05:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

cand q

Thank you for standing for arbitrator. I am far away from it all (travel, mourning), not in the mood, so just an informal question you can answer or ignore:

Liviu Holender chose lieder by five composers whose music was banned by the Nazis—Schreker, Zemlinsky, Mahler, Korngold and Schönberg—for a recital at the Oper Frankfurt.

What does this 2024 DYK tell you about infoboxes for classical composers in 2024? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well, I guess it says that 80% of classical composers have infoboxen :) but actually, doing a quick search with PetScan, it actually looks like only 20% (588 of 2898) have them. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I rather see that there are classical composers with an infobox without debate. The few with debate: do you think what you see needs "contentious topic" treatment? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for improving articles in November! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy (Belated) First Edit Day!

P.S. I am so sorry for the lateness. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, DaniloDaysOfOurLives! That edit was complete OR, so it's a little strange to be celebrating it, but welcome nonetheless I think if I'm picking the day I became a capital-'W' Wikipedian, it'd either be the day I got my first DYK (March 1) or promoted my first DYK (August 16). — Preceding unsigned comment added by theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) 22:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I'm in a similar situation leek. I created my account in June 2020 with this being my first edit, but only made like a few edits until December 2023 meaning i've been on Wikipedia for a year at this stage. My first DYK was in March 2024, and my first promotion was in June 2024. Sounds like we joined DYK in the same month, but three years later. JuniperChill (talk) 13:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question?

Hi Leeky, I noticed that you did not answer my question on the ArbCom election page. I'm still very interested in hearing your response even thought it won't be part of the community discussion. Thanks in advance. Netherzone (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Netherzone :) haven't gotten to it yet, but the election's not over, and I've got an answer in progress already! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best Wishes

Hi Theleekycauldron , I noticed that you are running for Arbcom elections. I want to wish you good luck for it. I have just voted for you :) Maliner (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Maliner (and FeralOink)! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a link and I'll vote for you too. BorgQueen (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Election's here! And hey, if you're reading this – yes, you, talk page stalker – voting gives you a werewolf sticker and the inalienable right to complain about the Committee for a whole year, so you should absolutely go do it if you haven't already.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Long time no talk, I would also like to offer you my best wishes in the ArbCom election! Unnamed anon (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]