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)

December music

November was rich in sadness and happiness for me, expressed in music. Regarding my (archived question), I found one so far who looked deeply into the matter, Simonm223. There are two composers on the Main page today, Siegfried Thiele and Aaron Copland. I find the response of my friend Jerome Kohl to a question on Copland's article talk promising. What do you think? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today's story comes from a DYK about a concert that fascinated me, and you can listen! For my taste, the hook has too little music - I miss the unusual scoring and the specific dedication - but it comes instead with a name good for viewcount. I'd still like to know what you think about the Copland posts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the Main page today Jean Sibelius on his birthday. Listening to Beethoven's Fifth from the opening of Notre-Dame de Paris. We sang in choirs today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Listen today to the (new) Perplexities after Escher. - Congratulations to being elected! Could you look at Samuel Barber and tell me if you miss something in his infobox? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Listen today to Beethoven's 3rd cello sonata, on his birthday - it was a hook in the 2020 DYK set when his 250th birthday was remembered. I picked a recording with Antonio Meneses, because he was on my sad list this year, and I was in Brazil (see places), and I love his playing. - I can report happily that the Barber situation was resolved. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Congratulations on your appointment to Arbcom! Andre🚐 00:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

congrats! :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 01:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also glad to see this, and for the record you did get my vote, but I would also caution you to take it slow. You've gone from admin to ARBCOM much quicker than most, I'd hate to see you take on too much and burn out. The committee is a lot of work, but you have a great group with a some highly experienced arbs incoming with you. Batten down your inbox, it's about to get cray cray for a while. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gods help us. Best, BusterD (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AndreJustAndre and Sawyer777: Thank you so much!

@Just Step Sideways: Thank you, that means a lot :) I would've had quite a bit of fun serving alongside you on the Committee, I'm sorry to miss that opportunity! I'm still happy with this year's graduating class :) very much looking forward to serving alongside them. Thank you for the advice, I'll make sure to keep it in mind. And thank you for keeping in good spirits and reaching out to all of the other candidates!

@BusterD: They might help, they might not, I'm reaching for the seatbelt buckle pronto. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, I hope you still have time for existing onerous duties. CMD (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

congratulations. Crafterstar (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Arbitration Committee

The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning members following their election by the community. Their two-year terms formally begin on 1 January 2025:

CaptainEek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Daniel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Elli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Liz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Theleekycauldron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The one-year terms of these members also begin on 1 January 2025:

Primefac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Upon meeting the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public personal data and signing its corresponding confidentiality agreement, all incoming members will be subscribed to all Committee-managed email lists, assigned the CheckUser and Oversight permissions for use in office, and given access to the CheckUser and Oversight queues on the VRT system.

We also thank our outgoing colleagues, whose terms end on 31 December 2024:

Firefly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Guerillero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
L235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Moneytrees (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Outgoing members are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, to remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their terms on the Arbitration Committee. To that effect:

Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing members, who have not chosen to retain them, after 31 December 2024:
CheckUser: Firefly, L235

Oversight: Firefly, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees
Outgoing members are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. That will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
All outgoing members will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list.
All outgoing members will be unsubscribed from the clerks-l mailing list, with the exception of Firefly, Guerillero, and Moneytrees, who have chosen to remain subscribed.

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § 2025 Arbitration Committee

Your draft article, Draft:Wendy's on Twitter

Hello, Theleekycauldron. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Wendy's on Twitter".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Red-tailed hawk

Hello, Theleekycauldron. You have new messages at User talk:Theleekycauldron/Scripts/PSHAW/protocols/prep builder.js.
Message added 17:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I figure I'd drop a talkback message here, since it's your userscript. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

For however much it might be worth, just wanted to let you know I support your monitoring actions at RfA HF2. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi there — I’d like to formally request you reinstate my comment. Not going to do the whole citing of all caps, but the standard for removal of comments on any page is that it’s a clear personal attack and it was intended as such. Given that there’s been pretty diverse comment on this that it was not a clear violation of NPA, and I’ve clarified multiple times over now that it was a comment on the actions, I think it doesn’t meet the standards for removal. I’m not going to create more drama about it — too busy the rest of the week and it’s not that big enough of a deal to bother with AN. It’s just somewhat frustrating that there’s such a clear assumption of bad faith being made while I’m being accused of not assuming good faith. Reasonable people can and do disagree, and the best response to disagreement is discussion, as I’ve been trying to do this whole time. TonyBallioni (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following up in case you missed this. From a quick nose count perspective from the talk page and the main RfA page it looks like 16-5 against removal at this point (on mobile and traveling so take my counting for what it’s worth.) TBallioni (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find the discussion of your outburst has moved on to other venues where the actual issue can be discussed more calmly. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s fine, but I would appreciate a response from the administrator who decided to take an administrative action. Additionally the policy discussion is separate from my vote in a particular RfA, so that wouldn’t be the best venue for this. TBallioni (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Tony, thanks for the follow-up :) I want to say first that I haven't and didn't mean to accuse you of acting in bad faith – if our wires got crossed somewhere on that, I am sincerely sorry. But reflecting on it, I still feel that the removal was in line with the MONITOR and admin policies. I do appreciate that you've gone out of your way write a new and better comment, but my thoughts about the original !vote haven't really changed; that in mind, I don't think I'll be able to restore it. All the best, theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries — this was the response I expected and I’m fine dropping it because I don’t think further escalation would be good for the community.

Accountability is though, which is why I was insistent on a response here. There’s an annualish tradition of new arb(s) misreading their elections as a mandate to do XYZ, overstepping in their individual roles as admins, and getting a slap on the wrist for it. That’s essentially what happened here, but I think what concerns me is 1) you don’t see that you’re acting outside of consensus and 2) that you basically ignored administrator accountability as a policy since you were editing without responding to an appeal of your admin actions for two days. Neither of which are normal outside of cases where someone is about to resign anyway, which I don’t think is the case here.

On point 1 and to respond somewhat directly to you’re response: it doesn’t really matter if you believe that I violated policy and that you acted within bounds. The community doesn’t and nothing in existing policy gives you the ability to maintain an admin action even when there’s consensus against it. That’s a big deal even if this is itself a pretty minor incident, and honestly it’s very concerning and the main reason I posted here — it’s literally the first time in 8 years I’ve ever seen an admin claim that, and it was worth getting a response.

Anyway, I do appreciate the response. Having these things on the record in case it comes up again in the future is good for community-based governance. TBallioni (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]