Contents

User talk:StonyBrook

HiStonyBrook! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

You are not improving articles. I just took a look at a few of your contributions. Is English your first language? The Yisroel Spira article is now worse than it was before you edited it. You took out substantial portions and just ruined the prose. Same with the Shmuel Kaminetzky, for example, "He was born to his father Yaakov..." That is not encyclopedic. Please use the sandbox or talk page before making changes that ruin the articles. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to add an infobox, then do so but don't majorly change the article when you do so and don't claim it's just infobox changes. You kept on removing vital information. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may or may not be correct about "He was born..." Try this one: Moses. Yes, I do add infoboxes where appropriate, but I never remove "vital" information, especially not in an underhand way, as you have accused me of doing. I do indeed remove laborious repetition of the same facts, and honorifics ad nauseum. Do you enjoy reading those? What vital information have I removed? Can you provide a single example? StonyBrook (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For example, by Spira, you just left one sentence that he was liberated in 1945, the original wording had him in one camp then transferred and escaped, more information to the editors. By Kamenetzky, the lead already had that he is the son, so there is no need to mention it again. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 15:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, read my Spira again. It's all there, except for one superfluous and unnecessary word about the Janowska camp - "infamous." In Kamenetsky, I just moved the reference to his father from the intro to the body, where it belongs. So are you going to reinstate my edits, or will I have to get other editors involved in this? StonyBrook (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just noticed you'd removed a few categories from various redirects and added them to the main articles, such as Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward . This is actually not inline with Wikipedia policy and the original situation was the correct one. It may seem somewhat confusing, but putting it simply, this is becasue a "murder of...." is an event and not a person and thus any person-related cats go on the redirect pertaining to the victim(s) rather than on the main article. See WP:RCAT for more info, thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shakehandsman: Thanks for following. I was directed to do this here. StonyBrook (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few editors don't fully understand Wikipedia's polices on redirects, so perhaps you have been misinformed. FYI I'm not "following" you, I had one of the articles in question on my watchlist and thus I saw it being changed. Anyway, I'll try to fix the issue and restore the pages back to their original form.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, a little more explanation. As per WP:RCAT, the issue is that of "Redirects whose target title is incompatible with the category". If a category concerns people (e.g. murder victims), then you cannot have an event in that category (such as "murder of") - that category can only ever contain names of people. As per the guidance it "should not look out of place on a category page". Now, it's often the case that more than a few pages are indeed wrongly categorised and you do sometimes see "murder of" pages in categories about murder victims. However, this is just a case of pages that need fixing - I've fixed several hundred myself over the last couple of years.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shakehandsman: I agree that logic, never mind policy, lends itself to the conclusion you are saying. As a matter of fact I was doing the same thing beforehand. My only concern is that User:Nthep, an admin no less, also saw what I was doing and instructed me to do the opposite. Might we be able to run this by him as a courtesy just to make sure we are all on the same page? StonyBrook (talk) 06:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sorry but you're going to have to remind me of the previous interaction as I don't recall it. Nthep (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nthep: I had been working on the redirect Leiby Kletzky, moving personal categories such as Category:Kidnapped American children and Category:Murdered American children there from the target Murder of Leiby Kletzky. You noticed that and said name redirects should only be categorized if the target Murder of X is a completely different name. So after I started switching personal cats to same-name Murder of X targets, Shakehandsman said that was wrong, citing WP:RCAT. I tend to agree with him on this, but I don't understand his placing of redirects in Category:Deaths by person in the United States, which seems to me to correlate more toward Murder of X. So who is right? P.S. Someone recently has been adding things like Category:2002 births to Murder of X targets. P.P.S. I have seen both redirects and targets in the same category, which just seems wrong. StonyBrook (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rereading WP:RCAT I was probably incorrect in September 2016 in removing the categories from Leiby Kletzky, if that has caused you confusion since then I apologise for that. The other issues I have no opinion about and you might want to take those to WT:RCAT. Nthep (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Simcha Eichenstein is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simcha Eichenstein until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi!. I want to say that I hope you'll agree to move Simcha Eichenstein to your user space, until the election. I can see that we both joined Wikipedia at about the same time, and, like you, I have mostly added content. But I also create articles and edit regularly at AfD. I started editing at AfD after a few of my articles were nominated for deletion, it helped me figure out what needed to be available on a topic to pass our standards for notability. But it also helped me understand why some editors seemed to be attacking my edits. Digging deeper into the Wikipedia editing system has made me respect it more, but, on some topis, less. In areas like Israel/Palestine, terrorism, and efforts to add crank scholarship about how organized gangs of Jews murdered large numbers of innocent Polish villagers during the Nazi occupation of Poland to Wikipedia articles (I'm not making that last example up,) Wikipedia can be appallingly partisan and far anything resembling objectivity or fact. But when it comes to the policy of not hosting articles on candidates for office like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Salazar, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summer Lee, or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jovanka Beckles, our policy really is pretty rational. Mostly, however, I'm writing because I hope that nothing I wrote in the discussion makes you stop editing. We really do need good editors. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you for tolerating my need to play by the rules. So many editors don't, even in articles about stuff that you wouldn't think heats emotions, like an article on a Jerusalem restaurant [1].E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think administrator intervention is warranted for Bus stop's actions, so I've opened Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bus_stop_at_Talk:Oakland_Ghost_Ship_fire.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On25 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Death of Kenneka Jenkins, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that a young woman who went missing in a Rosemont, Illinois, hotel was later found dead inside a walk-in freezer? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Death of Kenneka Jenkins. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi StonyBrook . I noticed that you recently used ethnicelebs.com as a source for biographical informationinRobert Schwartzman. Please note that there is general consensus that ethnicelebs.com does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. (See User_talk:XLinkBot/RevertList#EthniCelebs.com). If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Originally, I was not the one who added to the towns. I have just recently. In any event thank you for your wisdom. Do you do Wikipedia write ups? I was recently signed to a national TV acting contract and am looking for a Wiki writer. Any advice? Regards William Caesar Augustoni (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello William Caesar Augustoni and welcome. Please read these important Wikipedia policies. I will add a little advice if I may. The acting contract sounds great, it will certainly get you some exposure, and then one of your fans will eventually write an article about you. Thank you for your interest in this encyclopedia. StonyBrook (talk) 04:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm SummerPhDv2.0. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, La Raza Nation, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SummerPhD^v2.0 21:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iadded a source and repaired the broken links. StonyBrook (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are normal throughout Wikipedia. --2604:2000:E010:1100:59E1:64F7:19CB:406F (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While there is not an absolute prohibition to add a short caption with the year, as in "Rackman in 2005", it boils down to taste; I don't see it as critical to know the exact year when the picture was taken, since the rabbi is clearly presented as being elderly here, and there is less surprise with that than if it had been taken in his 20s, where some explanation might be warranted. Adding the name in the caption could be perceived as being redundant and distracting since the template already provides for the full name above the image. This Wikipedia guideline seems to concur: Other images (especially within infoboxes) where the purpose of the image is clearly nominative, that is, that the picture serves as the typical example of the subject of the article and offers no further information – no caption needed. StonyBrook (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw your edit about flashing lights from a car, I thought it first it had to be that old hoax about it being part of a gang initiation ritual. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Vernon I thought you might be curious to know that there is an article that discusses this. StonyBrook (talk) 07:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is. Wikipedia! --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review of Frieda Rapoport Caplan at DYK. What's that copyvio tool you linked to? I haven't seen that before! --valereee (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...so it's a list of reported cases, and the progress being made on them? --valereee (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome, it was a good read. As for the tool, I don't remember how I found it, but it was only because Earwig wasn't working at the time, and it did provide a smidgen of information. StonyBrook (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello StonyBrook, I am a bit confused by your edit here and the subsequent username and promo warnings on User talk:AdmanG. I am not seeing it. Could you please explain how they are promotional? Also, how does "Orthodox practice" factor in here? Thank you for your time, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AdmanG (talk · contribs) (read: Ad man G, or Advertising man G) appeared to me to be a WP:SPA, with only one edit to their name, that introduced links to a law firm in what was an otherwise ok submission. The problem was that the paragraph was placed in an inappropriate section of the article, to imply that this litigation marked a change in the Orthodox rabbinical approach to the purported agunah problem (a change in approach may only be accomplished through rabbinical deliberation, not activism of laypersons). No evidence was given for this in said paragraph, so after removing the spam links I moved it to the Activism section. StonyBrook (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

I wanted to clarify as I just noticed there was previously a minor edit war on the individual I added to the notable person list in Oviedo, Florida. I did not mean to get involved in the edit war, and I see for that reason you want clear notability for the individual, but with that being said, I have added a reliable source to his notability from a leading newspaper in Spain and a primary source from his entertainment group stating his hometown as Oviedo, so I think he is good to stay on the list at this point.

Just wanted to be straight up with a fellow bochur. Let me know if there's any yiddishkeit-related articles you want help with.

Gut yontif,

HillelFrei^{• talk •} 23:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

I wanted to let you know Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's ancestry is Yoruba (Nigeria) so that's why I removed him from Trinidadian and Tobagonian Americans article.

I hope you understand my explanation.

Cheers.

Risk34^{• talk •} 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Nope, I don't understand your explanation. He can be both.[2] StonyBrook (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful information on blue links, this finally explains why some pages have a million links and some pages have none! (a wikipedia mystery solved at long last)

According to the style-pages you linked, a couple of exceptions do appear necessary to me. The first would be Seventh Day Adventist (Clifford Goldstein) which is not a very large sect and lots of people don't know who they are. That seems especially pertinent on this page, where people might just assume it is a Jewish sect. (In addition, the fact that the SDAs have always been relative 'outsiders' within Christianity is notable here; that will specifically interest some folks about Clifford.) The other exception is the term "Tcheriner Rav" (Nachman Goldstein), which I tried to look up myself, and can't find adequate explanation... so a link is definitely required but there ain't no page about it! Somebody needs to write this page and if you are knowledgeable, maybe you can?? :D Nominating you, my dude! Seriously though, this could use some clarification for those of us completely unaware of the term.

PS: If you are interested in criminology, check out Elaine Parent, whom I have become newly acquainted with. Not a great page, mostly I just concentrated on finding some stories about her. You are welcome to drop in!

Thanks again, cheers and have a great weekend. PB57 (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PumpkinButter, not really, because all of the ancillary information about the sects can be readily found by just clicking the links to Clifford and Nachman and reading their articles. That is where every unknown term needs to be blue-linked, not the list. But thanks for your reply; in the future, you may answer on your talk page, since I am watching it—this keeps the discussion in one place. Best, StonyBrook (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Hey Stony,

Newbie here, appreciating the direction. I removed content from Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community because that case wasn't relevant to Brooklyn - it was from Toronto. --Sorinam (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing, Sorinam and welcome to the 'pedia. That is a fair point you bring up, but I notice that Nussbaum had involvement with a New York camp, which might have a Brooklyn connection, so I think it's okay to keep it. As an aside, it is highly recommended to leave an edit summary to every edit large or small. It is helpful to the rest of us to understand the nature of those edits so a decision can be made whether to double-check them or not. There is a list of abbreviations commonly used to make it even easier. Happy continued editing. StonyBrook (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Category_talk:Orthodox_rabbis_from_New_York_City#This_category's_description_is_wrong_and_subcats_need_to_be_fixed.. I wrote about the categorizations, and I think it needs more discussion because we can't have YTV and YU as all under the US or even NYC because it doesn't make sense. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the Bob Wells page. I was in the process of putting a page proposal on the talk page today, then I see the page was just made. Dana60Cummins (talk) 10:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. It's been percolating in my head for a while. StonyBrook (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, StonyBrook. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Yitzhak Israeli, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.Bukharian (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Context for why this was placed here by new editor. StonyBrook (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Nearlyevil665 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Abish Brodt and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Abish Brodt, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

in working on User:Doug Weller/Goyim Defense League? I think the network's recent activities have made it notable.[3][4] Doug Weller talk 09:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I remember this. I didn't know they were connected to the Beverly Hills thing. StonyBrook (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created 2 new articles over a week ago for Yitzchok Lichtenstein and Esti Rosenberg and translated one for Yosef Zvi Rimon, but they seem to be going unnoticed for the most part. At least, the other articles I had created seemed to be noticed much earlier and improved by other editors. I figured I would take the advice of the Help:Drawing attention to new pages Wikipedia page and reach out to another editor who might have an interest in helping to build the new pages. Thanks and looking forward to being in touch. IshChasidecha (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I recently made a couple edits here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse_cases_in_Brooklyn%27s_Haredi_community. One of them you did replace with a new citation- no problem there. The other one you just restored for no reason. As i stated, the reference provided states 0 information to back up the claim that (to paraphrase) “like christians, rabbis are often just re-assigned to other yeshivas”. You’re welcome to provide a different reference but the current reference just provides 0 proof, or mention to this claim. Shkoyach Truthseeker611 (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the entire article? Toward the end it says, Just as the church shuttled known pedophile priests from diocese to diocese rather than turning them over for prosecution, rabbis, youth leaders, and yeshiva teachers caught molesting children have been shielded from the secular justice system. Instead, at worst, they are called to account for themselves before rabbis, where the result is often a slap on the wrist and reassignment to another yeshiva. StonyBrook _babble 04:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by city or town in Germany has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at DYK:ERRORS regarding a hook you wrote. Primergrey (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]