Red-tailed hawk
Joined 15 August 2019
(Redirected from User talk:Mikehawk10)
Latest comment: 3 days ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic The Signpost: 19 October 2024
 | Red-tailed hawk is busy and is going to be on Wikipedia in off-and-on doses, and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
 | This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back. Their input is welcome, and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
|
||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review
editHi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
ARCA and WP:INVOLVED
editHi RTH, now that the AN has closed, please update your filing at ARCA to remove yourself from the "uninvolved admin" list and disclose to arbcom that this listing was in error. Thanks, Levivich (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Quod scripsi, scripsi. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think you fixing your incorrect statement is better than me asking arbcom to fix it and explaining that you refused when requested. Think about it. Levivich (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- I have written that I was a referring administrator. If you have issue with the current way of breaking people out, you are free to point this out to Theleekycauldron, who made the title that way. Perhaps "participants other than the referring administrators" would be better and closer to my original intent.
- If by
disclose to arbcom that this listing was in error
you would like to argue that the ARCA filing was in error, you are free to do so, as you have done already. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)- Your error was acting as a referring administrator while wp:involved. That error was not made by TLC or anyone else. I'm asking you to take steps to correct that error, by removing yourself from the list of uninvolved admin, and disclosing to arbcom that you were wp:involved when you made this referral (and when you otherwise participated at AEs as an uninvolved admin). Levivich (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- I see no issue noting the discussion at AN, which I have done. But I was certainly a referring administrator at the time, and I am correctly listed as such. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I made that change because Zero0000 is an admin :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- If Arbs cannot agree among themselves on a simple issue like conflict of interest among one of their number, that undermines our faith in their ability to make fair impartial judgments on issues of editing that are far more complex in their multiple aspects, dealing with the work of numerous peons who actually write articles. One can only secure respect if the rigour expected of peons here in their interactions is mirrored in an equally stringent demand by arbs that they live up to the rules, violation of which allows them to sanction the rest of us.Nishidani (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Nishidani: Sorry, I'm not following? Red-tailed hawk does not have a conflict of interest in the Wikipedia sense; neither he nor I are arbitrators; AE administrators don't have the final call on whether other AE administrators are involved, that is a job for ArbCom or AN; and I'm not aware of any administrative actions from Red-tailed hawk in the war topic area since AN designated him as involved. I'm not really sure how this is relevant to the topic at hand. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Change arbs to admins, one step down the hierarchy, and it becomes clearer. If admins don't give an example of a strict care for their own conduct, - their neutrality must be above suspicion -then the faith of the peons they rule is diminished. Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Nishidani: Sorry, I'm not following? Red-tailed hawk does not have a conflict of interest in the Wikipedia sense; neither he nor I are arbitrators; AE administrators don't have the final call on whether other AE administrators are involved, that is a job for ArbCom or AN; and I'm not aware of any administrative actions from Red-tailed hawk in the war topic area since AN designated him as involved. I'm not really sure how this is relevant to the topic at hand. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- If Arbs cannot agree among themselves on a simple issue like conflict of interest among one of their number, that undermines our faith in their ability to make fair impartial judgments on issues of editing that are far more complex in their multiple aspects, dealing with the work of numerous peons who actually write articles. One can only secure respect if the rigour expected of peons here in their interactions is mirrored in an equally stringent demand by arbs that they live up to the rules, violation of which allows them to sanction the rest of us.Nishidani (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Your error was acting as a referring administrator while wp:involved. That error was not made by TLC or anyone else. I'm asking you to take steps to correct that error, by removing yourself from the list of uninvolved admin, and disclosing to arbcom that you were wp:involved when you made this referral (and when you otherwise participated at AEs as an uninvolved admin). Levivich (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think you fixing your incorrect statement is better than me asking arbcom to fix it and explaining that you refused when requested. Think about it. Levivich (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 19 October 2024
edit- News and notes: One election's end, another election's beginning
- Recent research: "As many as 5%" of new English Wikipedia articles "contain significant AI-generated content", says paper
- In the media: Off to the races! Wikipedia wins!
- Contest: A WikiCup for the Global South
- Traffic report: A scream breaks the still of the night
- Book review: The Editors
- Humour: The Newspaper Editors
- Crossword: Spilled Coffee Mug