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 Antônio 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]

I come to fix the cellist's name, with a 10-years-old DYK and new pics - look for red birds --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today is a woman poet's centenary. - Thank you for improving article quality in December! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:21, 20 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]

I've been watching this unfold, and I want to say some things primarily as feedback to leeky. Given that Tony has posted a revised comment that seems acceptable to all involved, there is clearly no need any more to restore the previous version. But I do think that there has been a clear consensus in the discussion about the original oppose comment, and that consensus is that the community does not consider it to have been a violation of policy. Strongly worded, yes, but not a policy violation. As such, it was an error to remove the comment in the first place, and it seems to me to be a disregard for consensus to fail to acknowledge that. The adoption of the process of having RfA monitors, and the consensus against personal attacks that underlies it, do not extend to policing strong opinions. And admins who volunteer to be monitors are expected to use better judgment in that regard, and not to exert a personal definition of civility that goes beyond community norms. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Beware of local consensus and confirmation bias. Enough said. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you should beware of, too. But neither you nor the predictable agreement with you just below are doing leeky any service. It's obviously up to her whether or not she takes what I said to heart, but if she does not, she is responsible for her choices. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 PackMecEng (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase Tip O'Neill - all consensus is local. The policy, which reflects the global consensus, is removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack, and the local consensus is that this did not meet that.

Anyway, Tryptofish, I agree with your comments both here and on the RFA talk. I think a better use of energy would be some point in the new year updating the monitor guidance to make it clearer what the community wanted, because I'm fairly confident it wasn't de facto unappealable removals of controversial opinions. I don't think this is worth litigating here or at the RfA anymore in part because the substantive 'sanction' is fairly minor at this point with my more thought out wording posted. If this continues to be an issue in the future, there's plenty of avenues we have to address. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays!

Happy holidays and a prosperous 2025!

claudia, you have done so much for Wikipedia in the past year. Running both RFA2024 and for ArbCom doesn't look easy... all while finishing college and then applying to law school. And I would be remiss if I didn't address the elephant in the room: Thank you for everything during my RfA. Your guidance throughout the process was essential to the successful outcome. I was thrilled to support you at ACE, and I have every bit of confidence that you will do amazing on ArbCom. I sincerely look forward to working with you. Happy holidays, and wishing you all the best in the new year :) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 08:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]