User talk:Red-tailed hawk/Archive 9
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
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 HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
- Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, 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 SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
- Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, 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 Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
- Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, 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 City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, 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 Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
- Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
- Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, 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 BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
- Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
- Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
- Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
- Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
- Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, 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 HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia: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)
Is this conduct already a violation?
As you issued this warning, I was curious whether or not you would consider some of the edits made by the user, such as [1][2][3] and general issues of being somewhat aggressive (example) - and the general conduct, particularly on talk pages - to be problematic enough to issue a second warning, or if this is still civil and free of edit warring?
Thank you in advance :) FortunateSons (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- As for the second part of your question (edit warring), none of the edits you have linked are edit warring, since they all appear to be original talk page comments rather than reverts. The warning that you have mentioned was from a consensus at AE, and it focused on slow-mo edit warring.
- As for the first part (civility), I would need to think longer and take a closer look, and I don’t anticipate having much time this week to do so.
- — Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 15:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, don’t worry, there is no urgency! :) FortunateSons (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Two years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Hullo, rather odd question
Out of curiosity, is it worth RevDel'ing this edit from almost 20 years ago? I feel it is libelous but I dunno. Cheers! 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 00:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hello. I conferred with a member of the oversight team and we've decided not to apply revision deletion to the edit. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that! Out of curiosity, where does one draw the line with this sort of thing? 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 02:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Actually upon looking again I had missed the allegation of criminal conduct at the very bottom of the page. I'm going to revdel that now. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ah thanks! 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 02:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Actually upon looking again I had missed the allegation of criminal conduct at the very bottom of the page. I'm going to revdel that now. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that! Out of curiosity, where does one draw the line with this sort of thing? 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 02:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Your message on my talk page
I'm wondering what I've done to provoke the warnings on my talk page? Please note, I am trying to take a wikibreak so you may wish to drop me an email if an urgent reply is required. WCMemail 10:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 March 2024
- Technology report: Millions of readers still seeing broken pages as "temporary" disabling of graph extension nears its second year
- Recent research: "Newcomer Homepage" feature mostly fails to boost new editors
- Traffic report: He rules over everything, on the land called planet Dune
- Humour: Letters from the editors
- Comix: Layout issue
"Wikipedia:CLUSTERFUCK" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Wikipedia:CLUSTERFUCK has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 30 § Wikipedia:CLUSTERFUCK until a consensus is reached. Paul_012 (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Extended Confirmed request and being civil
Thank you for the kind reply to Markus Prokott when he requested extended confirmation. Sometimes it feels that some experienced users are a bit blunt towards less experienced users requesting or doing something not perfectly according to guideline. I know the guidelines are all there, but the volume is overwhelming and some of us have not read everything yet. Thank you again. Thermofan (talk) 08:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Admin-shopping
Hi Red-tailed hawk,
I thought you were very fair and even-handed in the way you handled this editwarring dispute yesterday I was involved in.
I just wanted to bring it to your attention that Beccanyr appears unsatisfied with this result and is engaging in admin-shopping by reaching out to another admin they seem friendly with here.
Thanks, Peter L Griffin (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message. I don't find that to be admin shopping; the user made a post on a noticeboard, and then reached out to an uninvolved administrator to ask the admin to take a look. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Red-tailed hawk, I am concerned that Peter L Griffin appears to be continuing to war toward their preferred version of their page. [1] and [2] are separate reverts within 24 hours of one another, at least. I stopped looking after I found two. (Tried to report on 3RRN; Twinkle failed me.) I am moreover concerned about the general pattern that I see as a minimally involved editor: the editing pattern looks like WP:STONEWALLing and WP:Civil POV pushing to me. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi there Russ,
- I am aware that Death of Nex Benedict is contentious and that 1RR is in effect, and I have been very carful to not violate that.
- The first link you share is not a revert, but a normal edit adding contextual information -- "To revert is to undo the action of another editor." Only the second edit is a revert, and one revert is not in violation of 1RR. Peter L Griffin (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not to mention, there is also an exemption for removing unsourced information, and my edit was exactly that -- so it could even be argued that there were zero reverts for 1RR purposes. Peter L Griffin (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- I do, however, want to bring notice to violations of 1RR by User:Sawerchessread, who appears to make POV edits by removing reference to water pouring from the lead:
- [1], [2] Peter L Griffin (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- The edit summary "removing this is highly contentious" makes it clear that Griffin knew that he was reverting an earlier edit in the 1st revert (precisely, [3]). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- If the first edit is a revert, who am I reverting? Peter L Griffin (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not to mention, there is also an exemption for removing unsourced information, and my edit was exactly that -- so it could even be argued that there were zero reverts for 1RR purposes. Peter L Griffin (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have gotten extremely busy in my personal life recently, so I write in haste. If an edit returns content to as it was in a previous revision in some non-trivial way (I.e. not fixing a clear typo) then it is a revert. If the meaning fundamentally changes because of an edit, then it is a revert. I don’t have the ability to dig through diffs and assess admin actions at the moment owing to my busy-ness, though any other admin is, and I trust that someone else will take a look at the present report on the AN3 board. — Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 14:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hey @Red-tailed hawk, sorry to be a bother yet again. I seem to have been reported for edit warring on Death of Nex Benedict again by a different user. I've been mindful since last time, thought, and I don't think you'll find that I have -- though the other user has edited in violation of 1RR. Since you handled this last time, I thought you might want to handle this again.
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Peter_L_Griffin_reported_by_User:Sawerchessread_(Result:_) Peter L Griffin (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Red-tailed hawk, I am concerned that Peter L Griffin appears to be continuing to war toward their preferred version of their page. [1] and [2] are separate reverts within 24 hours of one another, at least. I stopped looking after I found two. (Tried to report on 3RRN; Twinkle failed me.) I am moreover concerned about the general pattern that I see as a minimally involved editor: the editing pattern looks like WP:STONEWALLing and WP:Civil POV pushing to me. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024
Hello Red-tailed hawk,
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
Reminders:
- You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
- Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
- To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Gladys (owl)
I would be interested in your thoughts and comments and page improvements on the Gladys (owl) | Talk:Gladys (owl) page which was proposed for deletion one day after it was created. It is about an escaped Eurasian eagle-owl that later was killed after getting hit by a vehicle. However, this occured in Minnesota, not New York City. Myotus (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hello. I don't really have the time to go through the sourcing at the moment. My apologies. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)