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)

Early close for discussion only review[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Barkeep49, Risker, and BusterD: thank you for a constructive feedback and a needed check :) I genuinely appreciate it. I've already reversed my close, and will keep in mind what I should and shouldn't be doing as the facilitator going forward. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking our thoughts on board and acting on them, theleekycauldron. Risker (talk) 02:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was coming here to ask that you revoke your close, because this was a genuinely ongoing discussion without a consensus. There's no reason to close this discussion so soon; it can easily go another week or two. Please reopen. Risker (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought your close was short-sighted (and you know I'm your biggest fan leek). I previously cautioned you against any undue clerking at RfA (your influence on the entire reform process looming so large). Always let somebody else make these calls even if the outcomes will be identical. This is such a tiny, tiny sub-part of the historic, consensus-based move forward for RfA. At this point, these closes are all victories for reform. Keep your thumbs far far away from the scale. BusterD (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle[edit]

One of my favorite mixes by Jumpin Jack Frost, hope you enjoy. Levivich (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yatesbury[edit]

Hi theleekycauldron, I saw your edit on Devizes Plot. p.177 of Whiting goes "... based for a time at RAF Yatesbury in Wiltshire, which Koenig had hoped to sieze during the great march on London...", which is why I was confident enough to put the sieze bit in DYK. Is there something I'm missing? Pahunkat (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pahunkat: works for me! Couldn't find that in the source, but i couldn't see the whole book, so that's cool. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. To be fair, 78 only references them stealing a mosquito, the mention of actually seizing it comes later at 177. The full book should be on the open library, I tend to only use sources I can get for free off the internet ~~because I'm a cheapskate~~ for convenience. De Normann mentions Yatesbury in a different context, on how two prisoners tried to steal a plane from there in a previous escape attempt, but doesn't contradict the statement from what I can tell. Pahunkat (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ASC[edit]

I returned from a father's day dinner to find that not only was the nom gone, but the entire discussion of the nom had been removed as well and the link on my talk page was already dead. Reading from the history (always easy) I am still not clear on how to move forward. You say an admin can reopen it. I am an admin, does that mean I can reopen it? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz: I would say that your next step is to ask at Wikipedia talk:Did you know and gauge opinion there. If consensus seems in favor, I don't think people will mind you re-opening. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before I do, can you offer reasons the consensus might *not* be in favor, and what might I do to avoid that? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz: Mainly, it'd be that your hook already had a run on the Main Page, and that it'd be unfair to give it a second try. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potential hook[edit]

I had to retract my hook at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Queue 3 for Ella Scoble Opperman because the statement came from someone who was involved with the same college. I was wondering if you could see if either of my two new suggestions work. If not, that's fine too. Just thought I would ask. SL93 (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93: Since Amakuru is the admin on the case, I'm going to let him take first crack; if he doesn't respond and there's less than 12 hours left on the clock, feel free to ping me. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll have more time to look at this tomorrow evening hopefully. We've got a few days till the hook runs anyway. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thank you. I didn't realize we had a few more days. SL93 (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]