Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/theleekycauldron

For theleekycauldron's second RfA, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/theleekycauldron 2.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

theleekycauldron

Not to be confused with User:Leaky caldron.

Final (95/50/13); ended 12:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC) - Withdrawn by the candidate, closed by ProcrastinatingReader -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 12:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination from Maile66

theleekycauldron (talk · contribs) – Admins play an important role in maintaining Wikipedia as a living project. theleekycauldron is an editor who has shown initiative towards the future of Wikipedia, offering ideas to enhance our existing processes. Two examples are:

• Proposal for Spoken Wikipedia on the Main Page: [1], 2
• Instituting the DYK Monthly wrap newsletter at the Did You Know (DYK) project.

Primarily editing on English Wikipedia since 2017, theleekycauldron has also edited at Commons, Simple English Wikipedia and Wikidata. They have contributed 32 successful nominations to DYK Their keen interest in further assisting DYK with its Admin-restricted processes, would certainly be a gain for that project. They are already part of a larger cross section of Wikipedians seeking ways to help the encyclopedia segue into the future as a contemporary participant of the global community. Giving theleekycauldron the mop would further enable their efforts to keep Wikipedia in good working order. — Maile (talk) 11:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Valereee

I'm extremely pleased to recommend for the mop theleekycauldron, who first came to my attention through their work at DYK, where they've been invariably helpful and have taken a lot of initiative in multiple ways. I've been very impressed with their general level of judgement and willingness to accept advice. For me this candidate ticks all the boxes: invariably civil, competent at their chosen tasks, and willing to listen to others. It doesn't really get much better than that.

In addition to their extensive work at DYK, TLC has created significant content, including a Featured List, a Featured Article, and several Good Articles. valereee (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept with gratitude! I'm open to recall; I have used one other account to edit, a full explanation for which can be found here. I have never made a paid contribution, nor do I intend to do so in the future. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 14:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it's time to withdraw this nomination. I'd like to thank everyone for participating—the support has been gratifying, and the opposition has been quite thought-provoking. I've taken a lot to heart over the past couple of days—and on the whole, just participating in this RfA is a privilege I'm grateful for. Until next time! :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?

A: I've been active with the Did you know project, assembling new sets and working with nominators to improve their hooks. I'd like to help out more—I can move preps to queues, tweak hooks in the queues when necessary, provide assistance at WP:ERRORS, and maintain other parts of the project that require admin access. The majority of what I do is most likely going to be moving preps to queues, since DYK frequently suffers a backlog; that is, a shortage of ready-to-go admin-approved queues. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 14:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I've helped promote three articles to Good Article status, starting two of them from scratch; I also have a Featured Article, SLAPP Suits; it's a segment of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, and I started working on the article around a year ago. The GAs I worked on include the John Oliver Memorial Sewer Plant, another one of Oliver's comic adventures, Mrs. Landingham, a character from The West Wing, and Pronunciation of GIF, which covers the debate about whether it's pronounced "gif" or "jif". I've also created lots articles about episodes of The West Wing (I really do love that show) and U.S. state legislators.

I'm equally proud of my work at DYK; this is some combination of building prep sets, flagging nominations that don't look right, revising hooks, helping nominators improve hooks, nominating hooks of my own, responding to requests and questions at DYK's discussion page, and maintaining the DYK statistics archive with new templates and a script, both of my own creation. I like that DYK brings attention to new, interesting, but also incomplete content; it provides help to creators looking for their next steps, as well as a great incentive to create quality new content. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 14:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I generally try to lay out my thinking as best as possible, let the other person know that I understand and sympathize with their concerns, and see if there's a compromise or solution that can be worked out. I always try to offer solutions next to problems (or even just fix it myself), but if I'm unable to think of one, I try to brainstorm with the other person and/or any other eyeballs I can get on the situation. I also tend to be flexible, and I'm willing to work with the preferences of lots of others. If there's a concrete policy issue at stake, or I feel that the other person does not have all the information, that's something to discuss further. This discussion from my talk page would be a good example.

My experience has also imparted unto me a pretty good rule: don't edit when stressed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 14:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Notes

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Optional questions from Pahunkat

4. Hello theleekycauldron and thanks for volunteering to be a sysop. This discussion at WTDYK caught my attention - could you clarify what you mean by "Gibraltar situation"?

A: Maile had a list of links in this space until recently, so I'll refer you to the general comments section for those links. In summary, there was a controversy at DYK in 2012 over a project known as GibraltarPedia, which attempted to gain favourable coverage for Gibraltar via paid editing. Multiple RfCs resulted when it became clear that GibraltarPedia made frequent use of DYK as free advertising for their articles. The reason I brought it up was to point out that paid editing at DYK can be problematic if it takes up too much space, like it did in that situation, and undisclosed paid editing is always a problem. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 15:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

5. Further to the discussion linked above, what course of action would you take as a sysop (if any) if an editor was blocked for UPE just as their DYK hook appeared on the main page? Why?

A: Hi there, Pahunkat, thanks for asking! Assuming the hook is still on the main page, I would bring the block and hook to the attention of WP:ERRORS—there's no explicit guideline requiring that a nomination made via undisclosed paid editing be pulled, so I would want other editors to weigh in on the situation first—ultimately, a separate and uninvolved administrator should be pulling the hook if there is consensus to do so. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from DanCherek

6. Thanks for offering to serve. What were the contents of the recently-deleted page User talk:Theleekycauldron/Archive/i see dumb people – in other words, to whom did "dumb people" refer?

A: When I created my talk archives, I wanted to be able to categorize the discussions by their content, not just by timeline. I wanted it to provide me with a way to look back at corrections posed and lessons subsequently learned, moments that made me laugh or feel proud, and maybe discussions with Gerda Arendt. The archive in question, like the other archive titles, was meant to add some fun and caprice to this idea.

But with IronGargoyle's comment—I was upset, and I reacted by deleting and later archiving the message to "i see dumb people". When renaming my archive pages later, I asked for that archive's deletion. In responding to question 3 of this RfA, I wrote that I have a rule to not edit when stressed—this archive is a large part of why. Resentment is a dirty fuel, and I've learned that it isn't conducive to creating quality content or positive interaction with other editors. I'm not sure I'd engage a comment like that with a response today. But I would probably quietly shelve it in my corrections or less fun stuff archives. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from PJvanMill

7. Giraffer in the oppose section notes this edit, in which you removed an objection to your close of a discussion from your user talk. Your edit summary indicates that you found the user's tone unacceptable. How would you handle a similar comment today and why?

A:

Optional question from mhawk10

8. On the deletionist-mergist-inclusionist spectrum, where do you fall and why do you take that stance?

A: I don't really have an overarching philosophy as to which articles should be kept and deleted—I try to judge on the individual merits of a case, including whether there are any extenuating circumstances or odd sources of notability. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 14:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Optional questions from George Ho

9. I listed one or two of your uploads at WP:FFD for WP:NFCC disputes. As a result, one of them is deleted as textbook violation of WP:NFCC#8. What are your thoughts about the project's rules toward non-free content, like WP:NFCC?

A: I've been mulling this over in the past couple of weeks since you listed the first image for deletion. I think you're closer in your interpretation of NFCC#8 than I was in mine—for the episodic West Wing articles I've recreated, I find it hard to argue that including the image is vitally important to the understanding of the article or one of its aspects. I've nominated the image at "17 People" for deletion in that spirit. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

10. So far, what have you regretted the most out of your Wikipedia activities?

A:

Optional question from Spicy

11. You've expressed an interest in using the admin tools at DYK. Every DYK set runs with an image, so it's not uncommon for image copyright concerns to come up at WP:ERRORS or WT:DYK. Looking at your Commons contributions, it appears that several files you've uploaded have been deleted as copyright violations, most recently in October 2021. What have you learned from this, and what steps would you take to avoid similar issues in the future? Thanks,

A:

Optional question from Severestorm28

12. Other than the interests in DYKs, is there any other areas that you'd like to use admin tools in?

A: Nothing comes to mind, no; in any case, I wouldn't be using the tools in new areas until I had built up a requisite experience similar to my level of knowledge at DYK. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from Wugapodes

13. In what situations, if any, do you believe an administrator should invoke ignore all rules when justifying the use of advanced permissions?

A: The mop is, at core, a trust—an expression of confidence from the community in the ability of one to maintain the project in ways not open to every editor. While this trust manifests itself in many ways, I’m not sure that adminship is designed for the kind of snap, out-of-the-box, and cut through red-tape judgment that characterizes the pillar that is Ignore All Rules.

I think IAR is meant to provide flexibility to editors and the process as a whole; It's an elegant reminder that editors' discretions should be used more broadly than the rules may sometimes suggest. Indeed, though editors share a variety of roles on the project, the narrowly defined admin powers serve narrowly defined purposes. Even though admins are vetted for their experience and capacity for mature judgment, in my opinion, the toolset is not meant to help admins provide innovative solutions—wikipedians look to administrators as examples of conduct, and do not wish to see admins take unnecessarily cavalier actions with their trust.

In my experience at DYK, I've sometimes found myself discussing hooks that have appeared on the main page that may need correction or pulling. If I’ve seen any area of the adminship that might warrant IAR admin intervention, it might be the quickly-cycling environment that is the Main Page. But Ignore All Rules requires us all to respect the consensus behind the rules, especially when we find ourselves in disagreement. The tool is not a scepter nor a paintbrush, but a mop. When and where it is applied is the responsibility of a person we trust with such a tool, someone who can balance the need for decisive action versus consensus-building. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from AlexEng

14. Would you please comment on your understanding of REVDEL and how you anticipate using this tool? Please describe a specific example of material you would deem appropriate to remove under each of criteria 2 and 3 of CFRD.

A: At this point, I don't have plans to use this particular tool. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 14:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from Parabolist

15. Looking back, do you feel this incident at DYK was handled appropriately?

A: No, I don't—while I stand by the contents of the change I made to the hook, the manner in which I made that change was an overstep of the roles and responsibilities of a prep set promoter. I'm grateful that Pbritti was patient enough to explain where I'd gone wrong—by the time the discussion was over, I was sure they were right and resolved not to make the same kind of change again. In the future, I would propose the alternative wording of the hook on the nomination page, expressing my concerns with the original hook alongside it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 14:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Optional questions from Ritchie333

16. Why did you create (the now deleted) User talk:Theleekycauldron/Archive/oh fuck me, i did something dumb again?

A: That page would have been roughly similar to my current corrections archive. As I said in my response to question six, the names of the archives were meant to provide some whimsy to my content-based archiving—but this one was deleted along with the aforementioned archive due to its juvenility. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 14:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

17. How do you feel now about helping to promote Belle Delphine faking an orgasm (albeit in jest) onto the main page, and the blowback it received?

A: I do still regret making the promotion to the image slot—if I could make that decision again today, I would have left the image in the nomination and gone with one of the many other fantastic and helpful images available in nominations at any time. However, I also feel that my support for pulling the hook was misguided—when I realized the extent of my mistake, I wanted to do whatever I could to help correct it. But advocating for a pull at that point now seems like censorship, and in retrospect, I wouldn't make the same call there either. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 14:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from A. C. Santacruz

18. Thanks for requesting adminship. As a 16 year old, in the following few years you'll probably be graduating high-school and enrolling in university. How do you expect this to affect your ability to serve as an admin, both in time and areas of focus?

A: As a matter of form, I'm currently a college sophomore. This semester has been strenuous for me, so I've had to reduce the number of hours I spend at the prep sets temporarily, but I've still mostly been able to maintain a high level of activity. In the event that my studies or any other life circumstances render me unable to give a significant amount of attention to the project for a period longer than a few weeks, I would be happy to hand in the mop until I'm ready to return. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 15:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from Tamzin

19. You highlight on your userpage your work on Barry Smolin and Alexander Hamilton High School (Los Angeles). Both of those articles discuss at significant length a lawsuit against Smolin alleging sexual assault of a minor. Could you discuss your philosophy of where to draw the line between following what reliable sources say and BLPCRIME? As a DYK admin, how would you handle a complaint that a forthcoming or live DYK violates BLPCRIME?

A: Well, what tipped the scales for me is that Smolin is a high-profile individual—given his tenure as a public radio host for over 15 years, I felt that the allegations merited inclusion enough that the article would be incomplete without them. It definitely wasn't a certain call for me.

As to how I would handle this situation at DYK—according to DYK's guidelines, Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided. While articles have room to provide context, and place an allegation or other crime accurately within an article with due weight considered, hooks are 200 characters and don't enjoy such luxuries. So, I wouldn't accept a hook that focused on Smolin's sexual harassment allegations, because of the millions of people are going to visit the main page, most of them will not click through—so all those people will take with them is that sexual harassment allegation, which is definitely undue.

However, if someone brought a complaint to WP:ERRORS that Smolin's article violated BLPCRIME while a different fact from the article was on the main page—more people would need to weigh in and build a rough consensus before the article can be pulled. As a regular editor, I would be happy to BOLDly remove or reshape lines that I felt were unfair or undue; as an admin, I feel that using the toolbox would require more discussion. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from Valereee

20. Would you like an opportunity to address some of the concerns expressed in the various discussions, etc.?

A: In his oppose below, TonyBallioni helps to clarify the issues surrounding my closure of a discussion at DYK. The timeline of events that TonyBallioni has laid out is largely correct, but I feel the implications he has suggested are somewhat inaccurate. Make no mistake, I absolutely regret the edits and the way I treated the comment; but I would not characterize my intentions as mocking or incivil towards IronGargoyle. Truth to be told, I wasn't really thinking about IronGargoyle at all; at the time, I couldn't see past myself.

To start, I received the comment from IronGargoyle on my talk page after closing this discussion. The message made me feel like I was under attack, and in distress, I deleted it.

But the comment still gnawed at me. It made me feel small. So much so that when I created my content archiving system nearly two weeks later, I included it under "i see dumb people"—not to be mean, not to belittle IronGargoyle, but to make the comment feel like a joke. Something insignificant, that couldn't hurt me anymore—although, of course, that does not excuse it. When another poor archive name was pointed out to me at an ORCP, I requested deletion per USERPAGE, along with "i see dumb people" and a couple others—of course it was immature, I thought, why should people's concerns be archived in a "dumb people" section? Even then, I still thought that I did the right thing by ignoring the comment. I couldn't, for the life of me, see why a question which made me feel that way should merit a response.

While "quietly shelving this" did make me feel a little better, I didn't resolve the actual question. The comment didn't make me feel good—but a legitimate question or criticism does deserve a legitimate answer, no matter how it's phrased. If I were faced with the issue today, I would try to stick to the strategies which tend to work in calmer waters; talk to the editor and make sure they know I hear their critique, empathize with their displeasure, and indicate my willingness to discuss it in the appropriate location. I am sincerely sorry for the damage I did—if not sadistic, it was shortsighted and immature. I was wrong; I absolutely regret it; this was (and is) a true learning moment in my life. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from usernamekiran

21. Not mandatory, but would you kindly disclose if you approached the nominators, or they approached you? Also, when did the first contact take place regarding that? (these can be considered as two questions if required.) Regards, —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

A:

Optional question from Paradis Chronicle

22. I have experienced you as a meticulous reviewer at the DYK like here and here and you are absolutely able to make us better editors and I am grateful for having been reviewed by you. But in Arthur Hathaway Hewitt which you nominated for DYK, I saw several unsourced phrases in the nominated article. (I reviewed it at the time myself, thought it was good to go and it also went on the main page even with the several unsourced phrases). This gives me the impression that you demand more from other editors than from yourself. Or do you have an other explanation for this?

A:

Discussion

• Links for theleekycauldron: Theleekycauldron (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for theleekycauldron can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Support

1. Support as nominator.— Maile. (talk) 11:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
2. Support as nom. valereee (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
3. Support DYK being the way it is needs active admin work, but we also have to consider that our current dear admins are humans and can burn-out just because it's one repetitive area. The DYK process needs more admins and I had been considering throwing my hat in the ring, but this was before recent changes to the process - RfA as-it-was, was something of a deterrent, but I still gave it consideration. shortly before the, er, renovation of RfA I was considering throwing my hat in the ring. Lo, I feel leeky is absolutely taking this step after lengthy consideration of their position, of the use of the tools, and is hella brave to do so. Would really benefit, if nothing else, the quirkiest corner of the MP, and as for the rest - it's No Big Deal, right? Kingsif (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
4. Support obvious candidate to help with prep queues for DYK. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
5. Support I see no problems, thanks for running. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 22:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
6. Support This member is active and has a great many contributions to DYK so I am willing to vote for support. MrMeAndMrMe_{Contributions} 22:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
7. Support Would be a great asset to DYK. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
8. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
9. Support No problems here. --Ferien (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
10. Support per valereee and Mrs Landingham. What's next? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
11. Support – I've met this editor in several places through WP:TV and have never had any issues with them. They certainly seem to have the right personality and motivations for the role. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
12. Support in my interactions with this user, and others I've observed, she's been kind and helpful. While she has displayed some questionable judgement, as highlighted by the current oppose !vote, I think her having the tools will be a clear net-positive to the project. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

    Moved to oppose Support for meeting my mins and no big deal. In response to the oppose !vote, I think candidates should have a good year of history in general, I do not think they need a year in the areas they wish to work in as an admin. Ifnord (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

13. Support I'm impressed with how the editor works at DYK. I don't feel like the candidate needs more knowledge in other admin-related areas if they don't want to work in those areas - such an opinion to do so seems wrong and forceful. SL93 (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
14. Support without hesitation --Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 23:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
15. Support. Great contributor at DYK who has an obvious need for the tools. Not concerned by comments re length of tenure. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
16. Support. I've interacted with Theleekycauldron in passing, and she seems like a user who will make good use of the admin bit. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
17. Support. I have also come across TLC several times in passing and have remembered them because they have been calmly analytical, without becoming overbearing, yet have been quite prepared to be contradicted or even corrected. So passes my admin test. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

    Commenting on the age issue: I am a little upset about this. I wasn't aware that Wikipedia imposed artificial barriers, other than competence. I have reviewed in a bit more detail some of the areas where I have seen TLC - eg during their very recent FAC nomination. As a coordinator who gets to read most of what goes on in FAC reviews they seem to me to be in the top quartile in terms of maturely handling the process. As a first time nominator this is doubly impressive. I hope that the crats will discount all !votes based purely on age and seriously consider the extent to which other !votes referencing "maturity" issues are rationalisations for ageism. Plenty of editors much older than 16 have been "inappropriate" to a greater extent than TLC is accused of being, some admins among them. I have even been known to exhibit a playful streak on Wikipedia myself! Gog the Mild (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

18. Support — It is not many individuals that “wow me” but Valereee is amongst the very few editors who not only impresses me but have perfect judgement thus if they trust you, I do too. Celestina007 (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
19. Support - Plenty of reasons to support; none, as yet, to oppose. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

    Reaffirming support, now that there are a bunch more opposes. I've looked at the reasons for opposition and while there are some things I wish the candidate had done differently, I don't see any of them as remotely disqualifying. I'd want to see something either really egregious or a pattern of problematic behavior to back up claims of immaturity. I started to write "*I* certainly wasn't mature enough at 16, but I think we've had quite a few young, responsible Wikipedians" but then I remembered that while we always seem less wise/more foolish in hindsight, I was a sysop on a couple BBSes at 16 (dating myself, I know) and don't think I ever abused that power. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

20. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
21. Support, Solid candidate, one of the best (de facto) administrators at DYK. Great contributor and level head. No issues. Victuallers (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
22. Support: Has a clue, not a jerk, no big deal 😊 we always need more admins -- TNT (talk • she/her) 00:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
23. Support, with note, in the same sense WP:URFA/2020 marks old FAs "satisfactory, with note". Leek is bright and motivated and busy in an area where eventually, one way or another, you need the tools. Given this, I see no reason to stop her from being productive in an area of demonstrated production. That said, adminship isn't just 'a big deal', it's a whole lot of deals inherently tied up in one another, and some of them are very big indeed. Leek can be very single-mindedly dedicated and prone to taking as much as something under her wing as she possibly can, and while the former at least is a fundamentally good thing, I have serious concerns about its intersection with the mushroom effect/fact admins are inherently treated, no matter how much we say otherwise, with a deference not given to equivalent non-admins. I strongly encourage Leek to not just come in interacting "no differently than she did prior to RfA", as the essay nutshell suggests, but with much more caution about not holding herself the Guardian of a Topic Area than she does now. Happily, I actually expect this to inherently come with the mop somewhat -- moving from mostly working in preps to mostly working in queues will, I think, change her relationship with the area sufficiently to mitigate anything -- but it's something I want you to move through the world knowing, Leek. Best of luck. Vaticidalprophet 00:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

    Reaffirming support. I was aware of Leek's age prior to the nomination. While I don't have as high an opinion of her maturity as some other supporters do, I have a high enough one. (Overcertainty in one's worldview is both the cornerstone of adolescence and one of the issues alluded to in my note, but it's sadly not at all restricted to teenagers.) It's been a while since there was a serious RfA with age-based opposition, so people are understandably surprised to run into it for the first time in...several years? (My note in "General comments" about the intersection of age-based opposition with new OS policy stands.) Other opposes remain unconvincing and a sign of the phenomenon Bilorv comments on. To be more precise, I think the I-see-dumb-people thing was wildly ill-considered, but I suspect having a huge pile of people tell her it was wildly ill-considered isn't exactly going to make her inclined to a similar repeat. Vaticidalprophet 23:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

24. Support. This is probably the first candidate I've heard of before nomination. Pamzeis (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
25. Support. Looking at her edits, Leeky has a strong background at DYK with good edits. Sea Cow (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
26. Support No concerns. Severestorm28 00:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
27. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
28. Support, all good. SVcode(Talk) 00:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
29. Support; I don't normally participate in these, but I have had some excellent interactions with theleekycauldron in relation to the DYK process, and I believe that them becoming an admin will be particularly beneficial to the project in that area. BilledMammal (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
30. Yes! I've been waiting for this one, enough so that I had it pre-watchlisted. TLC is one of the main engines keeping DYK going right now, and they'd be able to do even more for DYK if they had admin privileges. Opposes regarding age do not hold any water in my opinion, as TLC expresses maturity and consideration beyond their years. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 01:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
31. Support I too have had good interactions with theleekycauldron at DYK. Very knowedgeable about the rules, good judgment, able to explain their decisions well, excellent sense of humour (which in my mind is important for anyone dealing with large numbers of people and situations). ETA: in re age - from interactions with theleekycauldron, I had assumed they were likely college age, from their language, humour, and level-headedness. Was pleasantly surprised to find they were 16. Not an issue, as far as I'm concerned. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
32. Support. In addition to what others have said, I'm also appreciative of their efforts to coordinate events for the SoCal area. bibliomaniac15 02:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
33. Support. I've been watching and interacting with this fine young contributor for some time now and was surprised when I discovered quite how young they actually were. I'm most impressed with the energy, sense of responsibility and clear thinking theleekycauldron demonstrates while working with more experienced wikipedians at DYK and at GA and FA reviews. I appreciate the good faith opposes below. I trust leek, and she has proven to be trustworthy. BusterD (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
34. Support most of the oppose votes are based on the candidate's age -- I personally don't think 16 is too young for adminship. I've seen plenty of mature teens and immature adults. theleekycauldron has plenty of experience and are good at what they focus on. Wgullyn (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
35. Support -- as a young editor myself it hurts to see the oppositions, most of whom are ageist and super concerned about the editor's time on WP. RfA has never stated any age limits (and young editors can even be better than adult editors), and the only limit RfA stated is that only EXCON-ed users can apply. This user seems to be doing just fine and, despite a few wrong edits, is quick to acknowledge the wrongs (and don't we all mess up sometimes?) I see no problem in them being admin. GeraldWL 04:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
36. Support will be a net positive to the project. Note, I was 17 when I was given the mop and I handled it just fine. If anything can be agreed upon on Wikipedia, it's that a user is judged by their contributions to the project. Nothing more, nothing less. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 05:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
37. Support — I have known Theleekycauldron for around 8 months now. They have been extremely helpful at DYK and have contributed to various articles. Quite honestly, are diligent in whichever field they go—DYK, GA, FAC, FLC, the list goes on. It is not easy to almost single-handedly maintain the DYK stats, write monthly wrap, create/expand article, review nominations, build preps! The prep set I take long to build, Theleekycauldron does that sometimes in less than 10 minutes (and it is all correct, perfectly balanced, believe me!). If there is an interesting DYK hook in last few months you particularly remember, there is very good chance that it has been promoted by Theleekycauldron. They have shown maturity in most their work; I disagree with the votes where the sole reason for opposing is candidate's age. Ask yourself, had they not disclosed their age, could you have guessed it? Can anyone guess my or any other editor's age? We all are here for the same goal: "to build an encyclopedia". And Theleekycauldron has been excellent in fulfilling that goal! Enthusiastically supporting! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
38. Support. - Dank (push to talk) 05:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC) I've reviewed the pros and cons; still supporting. - Dank (push to talk) 16:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
39. Support Thanks for volunteering, TLC. I'm impressed by your boundless energy, maturity beyond age (yes, I've been aware of your young age for a while), enthusiam, your great ideas and the willingness to put the work in to make them happen. What stands out is a willingness to listen. Just as Valereee said: "It doesn't really get much better than that." You'd make a fine admin. Schwede66 05:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
40. Support has a clue, cares about verifiability. I'm satisfied. Blythwood (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
41. Support - thoughtful, kind, net positive for the project. Beccaynr (talk) 06:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
42. Support – nothing but positive experiences with this user at DYK. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 07:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
43. Support, I expect that this editor will be a good admin. BD2412 T 07:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
44. Support this qualified candidate. In my view, the most substantive objections to this candidacy come from those who argue that the editor is too young. Speaking as a editor who will soon observe my 70th birthday, I might be expected to oppose on this basis. But I was a fervent advocate for Youth rights back in the late 1960s and early 1970s. I was the direct beneficiary of the Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution which allowed me to cast a vote in the 1972 U.S. Presidential election and also in a city council election that spring. Otherwise, I would not have been permitted to vote as "too young". I could go on and on about my advocacy for youth rights back in those days but will refrain except for saying that I feel the same way today. Some teenagers or even pre-teens are quite mature and responsible and some young adults in their 20s and 30s are immature and irresponsible. A candidate for administratorship should be judged on their maturity and responsibility rather than their calendar age. Absent these age concerns, I see no deeply substantive problems. My only caveat relates to the userpage comments regarding recent decisions about romance, sexuality and gender identity. Who needs to know all that, theleekycauldron? Wouldn't it be kind of creepy if I posted something like " I am a proudly sexually active heterosexual cisgender male since 1970" on my user page, even though that is accurate? I suggest that you be careful about these issues. Cullen328 (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
45. Support. Yes, of course, not concerned with your young age and thinking how old you were when you first registered back in 2017. Leek, I'm all for fun and caprice, and we do need good admins, so you have full support from this oldie (72). Best of everything to you and yours! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 09:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
46. Support, very happy to see a young candidate and someone who hasn't been here for a decade. Truly excellent work at DYK. The candidate often has to make decisions that are then questioned by unhappy customers, and their reactions show maturity and the kind of communication skills we expect from an admin. They are bold but also question their own activities. Great article space work too. —Kusma (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

    Also, significantly older than Ilyanep was when he became a bureaucrat, so old enough. —Kusma (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

    Moved to oppose Urve (talk) 06:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Support. The most positive attribute someone can have is to recognize when they may have made a mistake and respond to that feedback well. My concerns about the Belle Delphine DYK hook are very strong (see the discussion that followed), and I have been planning on opposing an RfA by this candidate on those grounds. But I've come to see that they recognize my concerns (about how difficult it is to retain women editors when content like this is pushed out), and I think this demonstrates an underlying humility and vision of grace that we need. Urve (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

47. Support. Active at DYK, have maturity and passion toward Wikipedia, even though only sixteen. He is seen through DYK process and queues, which needs admins. We are now nearly coming down to less than 1000 admins. Thingofme (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
48. Support. The opposes are unconvincing and I don't need perfection from an admin. Seddon ^talk 13:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
49. Support. The candidate is very active at DYK and has a need for the tools; they are a great and qualified candidate, despite some minor slip-ups. I'm impressed by their featured article as well, seeing as how I have an FA from that same series. Like several !voters above, I'm not convinced of the opposes - the age objection being particularly weak, as there are several active admins who gained the bit when they were as young as 13. I agree with Cullen above when he says "A candidate for administratorship should be judged on their maturity and responsibility rather than their calendar age." Epicgenius (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
50. Strong support: good temperament, very competent, positive attitude, responds well to feedback. Importantly: makes mistakes (this is a trait of all editors) and is willing to admit to and learn from them. You can see this through question answers but also by how their actions have improved over time—the deleted archive page should be seen as a positive as it demonstrates a heated situation that they learned from. But of course, RfA has no culture of forgiveness.
    I was young when I began editing and much more mature at the time than many middle-aged people and other adults I've seen throughout my time here. I am now eight years older and more mature, but less mature than some people younger than myself. The candidate has no maturity issues, so age is no issue. They have a significant use case in DYK and can be trusted to venture cautiously into other areas later as they gain more experience. Exactly the kind of person who should be standing for adminship. — Bilorv (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
51. Support per noms and Bilorv. 15 (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
52. Support. Having read the various discussion for and against, I think that the balance is definitely in favour. As per AlexEng's comments, I think that the issues that have been highlighted are minor at worst. theleekycauldron has shown excellent editing at DYK, with a clear benefit if they were to gain admin privileges. They have also shown a decent track record with AfD, as 84% match rate (excluding No Consensus) is pretty good, and most of the discrepancy with consensus is because theleekycauldron has nominated articles for deletion that have been decided to be kept - notably, the track record has improved significantly over a year of editing. This combination of generally good editing choices and a good demeanour replying to other users makes them a great candidate. Bibeyjj (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
53. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
54. Support Has done great work at DYK, where admins are needed. Has made some mistakes, none really serious or showing bad intent, & if she doesn't make it now she should come back in a year or so. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
55. Support - I stopped voting in RFAs last year but I'm making an exception here because of the poor quality of oppose rationales. I get that maybe legal minors shouldn't have access to viewdeleted because there's revdel'd stuff minors shouldn't see, but if we want to do that, let's make it a policy that applies to everyone, not a reason to oppose one particular RFA. I don't see any maturity problems with TLC, whether age-related or not. The opposes reminded me that the immature admins I've come across are all adults, including several in the oppose column who have done stuff way less mature than what they're pointing to as grounds to oppose. There is no correlation between age and maturity when you're talking about 16 vs 18 vs 20 vs 22 years old: it varies too much from person to person, no accurate generalizations can be made. We have 20-year-olds on Arbcom (and have had younger?). Age alone isn't a sign of immaturity and absent a policy shouldn't be a reason to oppose. I thought TLC handled the CofE DYK pretty well under the circumstances (vetoing the initial hooks, ok'ing one for April fool's as was done the prior year). Though I don't agree with it, as far as processing it goes, I think TLC did as well as any other editors would have on average. No reason to think they're gonna do any worse than any other admin we have. Also the notion that one year isn't long enough, or that there is something wrong with an admin candidate wanting to be an admin, are further evidence of poor judgment and poor reasoning skills by adults. Thank you for volunteering TLC. Levivich 15:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
56. Support. The established signs of maturity far outweigh the alleged signs of immaturity. I'm not sure we would even be discussing those if the candidate hadn't disclosed their age. The candidate's work has been very public, so if there was anything more than what the opposers have brought up, we would know at this point. And yeah, I guess we now have now diffs of two or three minor lapses in judgment, but I don't see anything that's disqualifying. Everyone who takes part in the public and heated parts of the project will have some of those and we shouldn't expect candidates to be absolutely perfect. Leaky is well above the relevant threshold. JBchrch talk 15:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
57. Support I am of view the user will prove better than my expectations. _{دَستخَط،} اِفلاق ^{(کَتھ باتھ)} 16:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
58. Support After having read through both the supports and opposes I've decided to voice support. While young, I don't particularly think that's a problem, and as for some of the judgement called into question, I don't think any of them are particularly bad. The talk page thing raises some concern for me, but they have proven themselves in other areas and I believe they would be a suitable admin. Flalf^Talk 16:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
59. Support. I consider leek a friend and an exemplary Wikipedian. This is someone with (in addition to an overwhelmingly positive contribution history, which is generally a given here at RfA) an incisive and nuanced sense of every situation I’ve seen them come across, and and a constant drive to learn from their experiences and do better because of it. All of these are traits I want to see in more admins here. And yes, leek has a sense of humor – which to me is a positive, not a negative, especially when every slight overstep has been walked back quickly, honestly, and without reservation, and to my knowledge not repeated since. My philosophy is that RfA opposes, like blocks, should be preventative not punitive. It’s clear that some in the section below have found aspects of this candidate’s history they believe to be inappropriate, but I would ask them to consider whether they’re preventing future incidents or just punishing past ones. I would argue the latter and so I see no reason not to support. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 16:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
60. Support. Oppose rationales are deeply unpersuasive, in contrast to compelling comments by Bilorv (among others). --JBL (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
61. Support, the age-based opposes are wholly unconvincing (as AlexEng and others have pointed out). We desperately need enthusiastic new admins. GAB^gab 17:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
62. Support I was hoping to wait until the candidate had answered the outstanding questions before voting, but based on the vote tally I figure I had better do so now. The "age/maturity" concerns are very valid; if there was no shortage of admins I might agree that waiting a year is the best outcome. However, I have no concerns that this editor's maturity would impair the quality of admin work. The various user-talk issues are the sign of a new editor, and the fact they have been deleted is a sign the editor is now more experienced. The DYK issues are not great, but considering how much the entire community has struggled to deal with other editors causing these issues, it is not fair to oppose on that basis. I have not done as much checking of the editor's history as I normally would, but I am generally familiar with the editor and have no other concerns. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
63. Support. Typically, I would be thoroughly opposed to this on grounds of age but the nominee, when in a dispute with me, demonstrated a strong willingness to learn from mistakes and behave in the utmost cordial fashion with maturity. Need more of this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
64. Support, per arguments made by AlexEng, Bilorv, Ezlev and others. Some of this opposition is bizarre. I understand the behavioural and age concerns, but both appear pretty minor (sorry, bad joke). The fact that this editor has disclosed their age actually shows a degree of maturity and transparency (i.e. that they know this might be problematic, and are open about it) imo. To paraphrase what ezlev has said: we should be looking forward, not backwards, and make our vote based on whether we think said user is going to make the same mistakes again. I don't think this applies here. −AFreshStart (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
65. Support Per BusterD. Lots of valid oppose rationales, I was most concerned by possible pov pushing in America Politics. TLC appears socially liberal, and of above average determination, which is good, but these virtues are often possed by SJWs. The excess negativity towards alt & trad right that infests MSM rarely shames anyone into crossing over to the progressive side. Rather it increases hatred & polarisation, resulting in all sorts of unnecessary suffering. But going through the candidates political edits I found most were of good neutrality, a few even pushing back against questionable anti right wing POV. @TLC, I hope you're not too bothered by the controversy here. There's a case that a few opposes is a good thing. Easy going editors able to fly through RfA with zero opposition are of great value. But for me the highest respect belongs to those who get stuck in trying to make things better. The sort of people who get things done inevitably make a fair few noticeable mistakes & hence attract concerns, especially early in their careers. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
66. Support. A fair number of well-respected admins were first elected before the age of 17. I have only interacted with this candidate at WP:Geonotice but having read this RfA I don't see any obvious concerns. The sheer number of opposes purely based on the candidate's age persuaded me to land firmly in the support section. Deryck C. 18:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

    @Deryck Chan — See WP:DEMOCRACY, admins aren’t necessarily “elected”. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 18:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

67. Support. As long as we need admins for specific tasks, we need to give people who do specifically those tasks the tools, even if they lack experience in other areas. /Julle (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
68. Support, (edit conflict) the first oppose gave me pause, but subsequent opposes seem to be making mountains out of molehills. The many testimonies above suggest that they're as mature if not more so than many current admins. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
69. Support - This is an editor who I've seen around quite a bit in various discussions, and I've always appreciated their contributions. While I'm surprised that I'm just now learning how young they are, I'm not convinced that age is a good prerequisite for the tools, especially when a user is so focused on a specific set of admin tasks. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 18:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
70. Support, no concern. I reject the age opposes, as I do not believe age to be something that is determined purely by physical age. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 18:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
71. Support, per Bilorv. Bridget (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
72. Strong Support per Bilorv. We should be commending editors on learning from their mistakes and moving past them, instead of punishing people for making regretful choices that they've acknowledged. DYK is always in constant need of more admin support, and our candidate here would make Wikipedia proud. I, for one, am excited to support a candidate who admits their faults. Nomader (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
73. Support. I've seen TLC around the project a number of times, and they seem to be motivated, intelligent and level-headed; they do good work at DYK, they participate constructively at AfD, the articles they write are good and their participation in discussions is helpful. Some skeletons in the closet have been alleged, which I don't find alarming enough to give pause. While it's certainly concerning to have very young administrators, potential legal issues seem like a job for the WMF, not RfA voters (moreover, I would not have guessed that they were sixteen years old unless they had gone out of their way to be forthright about it, and I think punishing honesty is a bad idea). The existence of a stupidly titled talk page archive is regrettable, but it's relevant that it was deleted at TLC's own request after less than a month and it seems unlikely that they will do something like this in the future. Frankly, calling these skeletons is something of an overstatement; at most there are a couple vertebrae and a femur. jp×g 20:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
74. Support Excellent content creation, and a good deal of dedication to the encyclopedia. Leeky would hardly be the first minor elected to adminship. I'd also like to point out that people mature a lot faster at leeky's age. Frankly, leeky is already a lot mature than I was when I started editing. Leeky has the willingness to learn from their mistakes. Leeky could have said nothing about their alt account. But instead they chose to be honest and truthful. That alone is highly valuable. Ultimately, we have to ask ourselves: do we really want the standard of RfA to be perfection? Because that is what RfA has felt like recently. Who among us has not made a mistake? But it goes to show leeky's maturity that they are willing to own up to their mistakes. There are veteran editors I sadly could not say the same for. I reject the argument that they have played into the trivia/shock entries at DYK. That a newcomer has absorbed the culture of DYK shows that it is DYK that is broken, not the editor. Oh, and CofE is CofE's problem, not anyone else's. It is shameful to be claiming that leeky is somehow the reason for CofE's issues at DYK. Lastly, the argument that one year is too short is a sign of the times. Leeky already has more edits than when I RfA'd. Back in the day, we handed out adminship after even just 6 months. Leeky has showed dedication, willingness to learn, and a jovial attitude. Why make them wait another year? Why make the project wait another year, when we are hemorrhaging admins? Leeky will make a fine admin; after all, its no big deal. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
75. Support I was on the fence, but Bilorv and CaptainEek have pretty much set out my arguments for me. TLC works tirelessly at DYK, making prep sets, and can easily be trusted to move them to queue, which requires the admin tools. Sure, people have said they make one or two mistakes, but I've clearly found out they can see multiple sides of an argument, admit fault and improve themselves. I don't see why we need to wait another year for them to help keep DYK running. As far as age goes, I know several people who are the same age as TLC, including one of my own kids, and some of them are perfectly old and mature enough to have adult-level responsibilities. Indeed, was it not too long ago that 16 year olds largely went out and started full-time employment? Further, I think TLC has conducted themselves with more grace and maturity than some of the slanging matches elsewhere in this RfA. Ritchie333 ^(talk)(cont) 21:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

    @Ritchie333: the slanging matches coming from your mates on this side of the fence, you mean. SN54129 22:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

    @Ritchie333: I guess we can't all benefit from blowback from a Main Page orgasm. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

76. Support not convinced by opposers and has clearly done some very good work. Dracophyllum 22:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
77. Support Has a clue; we need more admins. With our dearth of RFAs, I don't think it's reasonable to hold back WP:NOTQUITEYET candidates - I'm happy to assume good faith and give theleekycauldron the tools. -M.nelson (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
78. Per nominators, answer to question 13, VaticidalProphet, Bilorv, and others above, I trust the candidate will not misuse the tools. My main concerns were maturity and grasp of policy. TLC's answer to question 13 resolved my concern about policy as her response demonstrated an understanding of the principles which underlie our written policies. Answers 13 and 6 both resolved my concerns about maturity as the candidate has demonstrated an understanding of the social and technical weight of this role. Both answers show a candidate who understands the value in restraint, perception, and learning from mistakes. The nominators make a good case for tool need and with my own DYK experience I agree TLC will be an asset with the tools there. Promotion would be a net positive for the encyclopedia; I have no concerns. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
79. Support from me. I don't buy into the opposes based on age - candidates should be evaluated based on their on-wiki merits and as some have pointed out that we have respected admins who were also minors when elected. TLC has excellent work at DYK and I am sure that they will be a net positive with the tools. Pahunkat (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
80. Support, as a longtime contributor and participant in DYK; I have no objection to her based my experience there (OK, there was one recent incident where I think she wasn't correct on a particular policy, but that wasn't the main point at that moment so it's even less here or there now (And it's an area a lot of people don't properly understand IMO anyway)).

    I am further moved to support after reviewing some of the oppose !votes. I could say that I find far more users in this column, supporting TLC, that I know and have come to trust, and that might have been enough. (Personal attack removed) Daniel Case (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

81. Support per CaptainEek and the fact that I absolutely have no problem with a minor picking up the mop. Yes, the nominee might not have the ideal and perfect amount of experience that most expect a sysop to have but I believe that this perfectionist mindset is the very cause of our admin shortage and RfA's generally dysfunctional state. Furthermore, the argument that the nominee might encounter or access things no minor should witness throught the admin toolset (e.g. RevDel) doesn't convince me, since the most indecent stuff is usually always suppressed. Colonestarrice (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
82. Support because I like his username — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirbopher2004 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
83. Support Does good work at DYK and having the tools will be a big help to that project. I don't have an issue with the Dick Graves DYK nom; they responded to my concerns and a different hook was run. I do have some concerns about their young age and relatively short tenure here, but I'm confident they will grow into the role. I think the issues surrounding their user talk page - whether it's removing messages or how they archive - have been somewhat overblown. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
84. Support DYK needs more admins and TLC wants to get involved there. Seems like a win. That bashes my concerns about maturity. I was an 18 year old admin and I seem to have turned out fine --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 00:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
85. Support. I try not to !vote on RfAs too early, but given that over 130 people have already voiced their positions and it's looking like this has a high chance of ending in crat-chat range, why not. I have had positive interactions with leek before and do certainly believe she can act cordially. Also, as shown by the retracted incidents opposers mentioned in addition to the answers to questions above, she is evidently willing to listen to/learn from advice. In my view, the main things that go into determining whether a user will be a WP:NETPOSITIVE or not are how they could help and whether they can be trusted to not use the mop badly. leek clearly passes the first test with prolific DYK work, and there are quite often comments at WT:DYK asking for queue promotions from admins. As for the second, which is where essentially all of the opposes come from (via tenure/temperament), I outlined my thoughts earlier in this paragraph. I'd also like to echo Vaticidalprophet's and Bilorv's comments above, in addition to Levivich's replies to A. C. Santacruz in the general comments below. Actively seeking feedback from an ORCP and following through should be a good thing.
    I don't think Paradise Chronicle's example in the questions is an issue, as the main paragraph seeming to lack citations in that article was entirely verified by the reference at its end. Also, I don't see it as hypocritical at all - people can be tough in, say, GA reviews, yet still slip up in their own nominations. That's what the review process is for. The only potential issue I can see regarding age is the one brought up about minor safety/harassment (e.g. by Jclemens). However, I do not believe it is as big of an issue as people make it out to be. I linked this below; in that thread two people who passed RfA as a preteen are mentioned (one of whom was also a crat and still has the mop today), in addition to Rschen7754 (an admin at 15 and still very respected). All of these people (in addition to those then-minor admins commenting in this very RfA) seem to have turned out fine. Sorry for the lengthy/rambling comment, I hope I got my thoughts across. eviolite (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
86. Support The talk page archive title was immature, yes. But you know what? TLC got rid of it, well before this RFA, without being yelled at or dragged to a noticeboard. They recognized their own mistake. The red link is going to exist forever. The question is, are we going to hold it against them forever? Or look at the big picture?
    On the subject of age, we've had many admins as young as (or even younger than) TLC. I'm not aware of any real problems. In any case TLC is not asking to be an airline pilot or a police officer; they're asking to have a few extra buttons on a website. Anyone who thinks that precisely 0% of 16-year-olds are up to that task needs to get a grip. We aren't that important. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
87. Support Net positive, age shouldn't be a factor in determining suitability for adminship. W42 03:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
88. Support. I wholeheartedly agree with Suffusion of Yellow's starting comment in their support. Even though it was rather recent, there's no need to get hung up on it. People make mistakes. Echoing the statements of others: physical age is not a fair reason to oppose. I've seen many young editors do great work onwiki (TLC included) and I believe TLC will do great things with the admin bit. In fact, I'd definitely support young (and mature) editors to run for RfA if the need arises. The ability to reflect and learn from their past actions and improve themselves is a big motivation in my decision to transfer my !vote to support.
    Aside from that, with all due respect, let's avoid directly calling the candidate "immature". Although they may have done some immature things, it should not be used as an attack against their character.Chlod (say hi!) 04:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
89. Support. I don't see theleekycauldron's age as being a problem. There have been problems with immaturity in their past, but I respect that she's owned up to them. I think they'll be a breath of fresh air that the admin corp needs.-gadfium 05:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
90. Support — Good content creation, and a decent grasp of the DYK process. Age is not an issue in this case, because the editor has demonstrated level-headedness and maturity in their conduct for the most part. While I agree that their response to the RfC issue was less than ideal, I would like to give the candidate the benefit of the doubt as this was a singular incident and not a reflection of a pattern of disruptive behavior. We have our bad days, and there is nothing that I see in their editing which gives me the impression that they would misuse the admin toolset. If anything, they have recognized and learnt from their mistakes — something that a good deal of adults are incapable of. That shows strength of their character and willingness to improve — attributes I want and we need to see in administrators. — The Most Comfortable Chair 08:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
91. Support. I'm honestly very impressed by the answer to question 20. People make mistakes, and what happens afterwards is the most important part. Others have said everything else I would want to say; I strongly echo CaptainEek. I would be honored to have theleekycauldron on the admin corps. Enterprisey (talk!) 09:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
92. Support theleekycauldron has been helpful to me and has guided me several times. They will be a good admin.Venkat TL (talk) 09:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
93. On balance, per Suffusion of Yellow and Enterprisey. TLC will probably turn out fine. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
94. Support theleekycauldron knows what admins need to do, they have 5 or so years of experience and just under 15,000 edits. I fully support them and wish the best for the adminship vote to pass, I am certain they will know what to do. Zippybonzo (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
95. Strong Support After having spent more than a few hours reviewing the candidate's contribution history as well as reading and engaging with the opinions of others, I wholeheartedly support Theleekycauldron's bid for the tools. I have made extensive comments on the disappointing rationale in the Oppose section of this RfA, which I will not repeat at length here. In just a few words: it was profoundly disheartening to see the direction this RfA took, once !voters started piling on to oppose for trivialities such as age, impoliteness, and extremely flimsy claims of immaturity. I didn't see any of that, and believe me – I looked. Worse, some editors whom I respect actually doubled down on the nonsense rationale. Honestly, if the worst "incivility" you can find is a removed comment or the word "dumb" in an archive title, I truly struggle to reconcile that viewpoint with the fact that we've been working on the same project for these past fifteen years. With respect to those who disagree, I do not understand you. Theleekycauldron is an excellent candidate, and I wish them the best. Their work at DYK is exemplary. Their responses to criticism have been admirable. And they easily exceed my simple RfA criteria. I trust them with the tools. If anyone is still making up their mind, I hope they carefully consider what level of perfection we really need out of an administrator, and that they make the right choice. AlexEng^(TALK) 11:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, respectfully. You've been active for ~1 year, but in your desired area only ~6 months. In September, after a close, you also removed this talk page message which contained valid criticism about the close. While I don't necessarily agree with the tone of the message, it did contain a valid point, and in my view shouldn't have been removed, but responded to. Outside of DYK, I can't see much admin experience, with a total of 4 edits to RfPP and 7 to AIV, and no AfD/CSD/PROD log. I understand that you only currently intend to use the tools in DYK – and not in those places – but I would strongly prefer to see experience in more than one sysop-related area, especially given your short tenure here (for a hypothetical sysop). To me this feels like WP:NOTQUITEYET, but thank you for volunteering nonetheless. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 22:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

   Comment The candidate has participated in 114 AfDs (see the stats). Their participation in admin-related areas to date seems solid. BusterD (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

   The accuracy percentage is 77, but ignoring that (since many of the votes against consensus were >6mo ago), the 21 most recent AfDs go back two months, with only one AfD vote this month, which to me doesn't demonstrate sysop-level experience or activity there. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 23:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

   Giraffer, Giraffer, do you deem a 77% accuracy as abysmal or subpar? I note you say that doesn’t matter much, but since you reference it, I presume that subconsciously this is of concern to you. I stand to be corrected but I’m oblivious of any fixed accuracy percentage a potential admin candidate has to “meet” as prerequisite prior a/an RfA. I honestly don’t believe 77% to be subpar, but that is just my honest point of view, Furthermore I believe a clue as to what you want to do with the tools and willingness to serve the community is sufficient enough to become a sysop. Celestina007 (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

   Anywhere from 65-85% is typical for the average editor with enough experience to survive as an admin (much lower and you start getting into the ideologicals; higher and you start wandering into 'safe' AFD commenters). I'm currently at 83% and much less active at AFD, as a point of interest. Izno (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   Re both: I don't think it's abysmal, and I was ignoring it because it seemed less relevant, given that a lot of the votes against consensus are from a while back. It's not a bad score. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 06:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   As for "21 most recent AFDs go back two months", at the time I nominated, I had participated in a literal dozen AFDs in the 5 months before. Izno (talk) 08:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   Oppose I'm sorry but looking through your earlier contributions in American Politics there seemed to be a bit of pov pushing. And maybe that's changed, but my concerns have not been assuaged. May whatever's best happen but my vote is no. RichmanHopson (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE

   Would you care to provide any diffs? BusterD (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

   I'm curious about that because I can't find anything and you joined Wikipedia this month. SL93 (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

   RichmanHopson, Re-echoing both BusterD & SL93, honestly speaking, If you can’t provide a diff or two, to substantiate your allegations, I’m afraid I fail to see your point or argument. Celestina007 (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

   In the absence of diffs about theleekycauldron (with whom the account RichmanHopson has never interacted), a tour of RichmanHopson's short editing history may provide context for accusations of POV pushing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

   Agreed. I gave him a couple of needed DS alerts for abortion and gender recently and I've just given them one for AP. Vote should be discounted. Doug Weller talk 09:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

2. Oppose. This nominee has been active only since the summer of 2020, about a year and a half, and seems to have only one thing in mind: being one of DYK's go-to admins. The combination of relative inexperience and narrow area of interest are not encouraging. – Athaenara ✉ 01:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   FWIW, Athaenara, when I ran, I didn't think I'd do much outside DYK. When Cwmhiraeth ran, she didn't think she'd ever block anyone. I think that's pretty common. People grow. valereee (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   Ditto. When I ran, I had a solitary goal - deal with vandals. I had created a lot of content, but that in and of itself is not necessarily a qualification. Since I've had the tools, there just seems to be a wide spectrum of ways I can use those tools to benefit Wikipedia - most of those avenues I wasn't even aware of. We don't all know that until we are granted the tools. — Maile (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   "Athaenara has been with us since October last year [exactly twelve months at the time]", and that seems to have worked out alright. ("Things were different in 2007!" Yeah, there were more RfAs.) Vaticidalprophet 01:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

3. Oppose While I think that this editor has done some great work on WP, I mostly echo concerns about their relatively short tenure here. Additionally (and I hate to be the one to bring this up), this editor has affirmed on their user page that they are 16 years old (and I commend them for their transparency). While I fully realize that this will likely be seen as an unfair criticism by some, and while I have no direct examples of particularly problematic behavior on the nominee's part, frankly it is difficult for me to imagine a 16 year-old that has accumulated the wisdom and maturity required to handle the responsibility of deciding whether or not someone should be blocked, whether or not an article should be protected, whether or not a page should be deleted, etc. These can be serious decisions that have major consequences for editors and articles if we get them wrong, and often these decisions have little to no oversight. Futhermore, these decisions can sometimes be deceptively difficult to get right, they can be emotionally charged decisions, or complex multi-faceted decisions that have no easy solution. I understand that the nominee intends to work primarily at DYK, but becoming an admin means you can use the admin tools wherever you want, and we have to assume that they could eventually wade into other areas. I also see this as a WP:NOTQUITEYET situation. I have no particular age limit in mind for adminship, but I'd prefer to see the nominee return to RfA in a year or two. Otherwise, if they end up passing this RfA and becoming an admin, I wish them the best of luck and offer any support that I can. If they don't end up passing RfA this time around, I'm sure they will in a future RfA, and I hope that my somewhat unfair oppose rationale doesn't discourage them from continuing the great work they're doing here. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 01:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   For anyone curious about age and adminship, this thread is an interesting read, though admittedly very old. eviolite (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   I would have to disagree with an age limit. Wikipedia is for everyone and 16 is, in my opinion, plenty mature and they are reaching a point where they can handle decisions on their own and blocking their request for age is unfair. Being a user on its own teaches humility and maturity to others in my opinion and if they want to run, let them run. If this were a different social media platform I would agree with you but this is Wikipedia, and Wikipedia should include a variety of different mindsets. Having "the adults run the show" is against our foundation policies so I would have to disagree there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMeAndMrMe (talk • contribs) 02:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   There's a very good point made in that thread - how do we know anybody's age, unless they care to disclose it? Requiring anyone to disclose their age could be negative the other direction. How many would veto an RFA if the candidate was know to be past retirement age? There's all types of stereotypes of senior citizens, not the least of which is concern over mental decline. Maybe we should start requiring age disclosure of anyone brought up before ArbCom. We don't discriminate, do we? — Maile (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   (edit conflict)We all have an age limit; yours is just lower than mine. For instance, presumably you wouldn't be in favor of allowing a 3 year-old to be an admin, correct? What about a 7 year-old? 10 year-old? 12? 13? 14? 15? Again, I don't have any particular age limit in mind, 16 just seems too young to me, especially if they've only been editing here for a little over a year. That's my opinion. There's a reason we don't allow 16 year-olds to drive a car in the US (in most states), or buy alchol/cigarettes/guns, or run for mayor/governor/president. No matter how intelligent you are, there are some things that simply come with time and experience, and it's my opinion that some of those things are required to be in a position of authority over others. Perhaps I'm projecting a bit; I would have made a terrible admin at age 16. I was more than twice that age when I became an admin, and I still made plenty of stupid mistakes. I'll admit that theleekycauldron seems far more mature than I was at 16, but I still believe that it's a bit too soon, and there's no rush; there's plenty of time ahead to do admin things. Spend the next year or two delving into other areas of WP besides DYK, get some more experience under your belt, and I'd happily support next time. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 02:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   To be clear, I'm not in favor of forcing anyone to disclose their age to be an editor or an admin here. I don't think that would be right, and I think there could be other legal consequences to going down that road. However, I commend the nominee for being up-front about their circumstances, even if it means that people like me might seemingly use that information against them. It's probably one of the reasons that I'll likely support their next RfA if this one isn't successful. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 02:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   This feels discriminatory even if it isn't meant that way. I'm also against projecting personal prior inadequacies onto other people. Theleekycauldron has already participated quite a bit outside of DYK. SL93 (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   I will agree with the inexperienced part, which is true. But, in the future(this is a relavent problem to address), I would like to note that maturity depends on the person and is not a set age especially with a community from hundreds of countries. Though this is a strange analogy, when I was thirteen I had lesser maturity than others and determined that I would start dating in highschool even though most people were already dating. It was because they were ready and I wasn't. If this chat believes that such a person would be ready for this, then they should not hold age against them. MrMeAndMrMe_{Contributions} 03:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   We all have an age limit This is almost certainly false. What we all have are criteria of mature behavior that are unlikely to be met by very young people -- but that's very different from having an age limit. -JBL (talk) 03:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   Uh, every US state allows 16 year-olds to drive cars. And I would support a 3 year-old for adminship if their account showed an appropriate level of maturity (which for a 3 year-old is impossible, and maybe for a 10 year-old too, but I disagree that that's the case for a 16 year-old). Elli (talk | contribs) 02:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   @Elli: Counter-Uh, "do the research" . I grew up and got my license in New Jersey, where you must be 17 to get it. Sixteen-year-olds in NJ may drive only if, per the comment below, you count being on a learner's permit. Daniel Case (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   I was indeed counting learners permits, since driving a car with someone else in it is still driving a car. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   Double Uh, if you count learner's permits in "drive a car". I got mine at age 15, and was allowed to drive without any adult in the car. — Maile (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   I have a few thoughts about the age thing. She started editing actively about 1.5 years ago. She was then 14.5. Some people object to the shortness of the active editing, but when you think about it, she's been editing almost 10% of her entire life! Also, you have to admit that her accomplishments for someone who, as Elizabeth Bennet would say is "full young" (Lydia's age when she married), are impressive. And no one has even mentioned the other things she says about herself on her userpage. I mean, talk about evolving quickly. Regardless of the outcome of this RfA I'm now curious what she'll say about herself in a few years when she's a senior citizen.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   Honestly, I fail to see a good reason to oppose her on the basis of age. Though not a policy, guideline of any kind this pretty much contradicts the issue raised in Wikipedia:Ageism. As long as you add value to the project, you should be allowed access to rights and resources on the platform, unless specific state/federal laws apply to the subject, or when required explicitly by the WMF (like CheckUser rights). I've known people in their 30s & 40s vandalise Wikipedia articles, while teens and even pre-teens continue to add value to the project. You yourself might be 15 and I wouldn't know because you're behind the screen, I might create an account lying I'm 50 and again no one would know my real age because they don't know my real life identity. How are we going to enforce age-scrunity for others? Opposing on the sole basis of age would set a bad precedent that'll only encourage editors to lie about their identity because of the fears of being discriminated. As long as they can show their ability to handle the rights being provided to them, they're good to go. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 12:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

4. Oppose as not an adult. I note that my opposition to children being admins is 3/4ths of this Wikipedian's stated age. Jclemens (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   Just interested in knowing, had they not stated their age, is there any chance you would have supported on basis of their experience here? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   This is true that a large number of admins could be under the age of eighteen and we would never know. The discussion for oppose above states and describes this. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 04:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   One cannot oppose on a basis where one has no knowledge, but given that I have firsthand experience as an admin (and OTRS, CU, OS, and Arb) and the candidate disclosed their own age, it becomes ethically incumbent for me to oppose as an act of non-maleficence. That is, regardless if the candidate understands the level of negativity and potential harm admin status conveys, failure to point out, recommend against, and even inveigh against it would be an ethical lapse on my part. Others clearly don't see it that way, but I do, and hence my input. Jclemens (talk) 08:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

5. Oppose I don't think I can support a candidate with a now-deleted page titled User talk:Theleekycauldron/Archive/i see dumb people in their user space. Come to think of it, their user talk page archival system is... bizarre. Archiving discussions based on... content? Most talk page archives are sorted either numerically in chronological order (1, 2, 3, 4) or by date (January 2021, February 2021, March 2021). I suggest adopting a similar method of organizing your talk page archives, as it makes it much easier to find older discussions. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 05:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   This feels like a bizarre reason to oppose. Why does it matter how they archive their talk page? Editors aren't required to archive at all. Some just blank the page every now and then. I can't see the deleted page, but if you have some further insight as to why you are opposing, it would be helpful. AlexEng^(TALK) 06:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   You don't need to see it, just ask yourself how you would feel if you started a discussion with another user, and later they specifically selected that discussion to be archived to a page called "I see dumb people", or even better, a page called high-shtick fuckery. Is that something you think reflects the attitude you want to see from an admin? Beeblebrox (talk) 06:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   @Beeblebrox: I suppose I don't need to see it, but I will say that before you disclosed that they specifically selected [discussions] to be archived to a page ... called "I see dumb people"^{[minor edits for cogency]}, I had no way of knowing that's what the page was used for. Even knowing that, I don't feel that I have enough context to base an oppose !vote on this alone. If you have additional examples of poor judgment and immaturity that don't require the benefit of admin tools to view, then I would be very grateful if you would provide them. I have not yet made up my mind on how to !vote, and I am sure that others would benefit from seeing examples as well. AlexEng^(TALK) 07:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   Six different threads started by six different users were archived there, so the implication is that those six people, according to the candidate, are stupid. And this wasn't in the long-distant past, it was in September. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   @Beeblebrox: What is the high-shtick fuckery page about? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   It's two more archived discussions, both of which look quite jovial. Anarchyte (talk) 12:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   I think Beeblebrox has accurately summed up the first point about the "I see dumb people" page—which really should speak for itself. As for the talk page archival system that they used, saying it's not a requirement is a pretty weak argument for RFA—given how there are no official requirements for adminship, then any oppose !vote could be argued against with "the user isn't required to do X". Users aren't required to participate in AFD, or revert vandalism, or edit the project at all, yet we'll never consider an RFA candidate who does none of those things. Properly archiving a talk page is a good sign of transparency as it makes it much easier for other editors to find past discussions. I can better support a candidate who makes it easier for others to find their history, rather than obfuscating it—intentionally or not.

   To further clarify, my oppose !vote is not solely based on the strange method of archiving their talk page. It was added on top of the "I see dumb people" subpage, which alone is enough to get me to oppose. If the candidate didn't have such a problematically-named subpage, I don't think I would oppose solely for their choice of talk page archiving, though I would still bring it up and encourage the candidate to use a better system. In any case, my advice to change up their archiving system still stands, and I hope they consider it regardless of whether they pass RFA or not. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

6. Oppose Several people have commented that we shouldn't oppose based on age, and that's a perfectly fair position to take. It doesn't matter why a user exhibits poor judgement and immaturity. The good news is that if it is because of being young and inexperienced, that can change over time and doesn't mean they will never be suited for adminship, but as of right now I'm not seeing it. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
7. Oppose for their role in the C of E DYK mess. C of E was DYK banned for his own actions, but with DYK you can only achieve this kind of disruption if the people who accept, promote, ... these hooks agree with it. While the discussion to ban C of E from DYK for putting as many "dicks" and "fucks" on the main page as possible was ongoing (and theleekycauldron had commented about it, so was aware of the discussion), we have Template:Did you know nominations/Dick Graves, an article where the C of E had not only written two very childish hooks, but where they had written the article itself in a way to get as many instances of "cock" in it as possible, completely distorting the source material to achieve this. The two hooks were veto'ed, the proposal to get them DYK banned was well supported, so theleekycauldron swoops in and decides to approve "that some dick sold a casino without getting the sale written down?" for mainpage appearance. That's a quite spectacular lapse of judgment, from this month, in the area they want to work as an admin. Their opposition to the ban because the veto system in place worked well enough rings rather hollow when they at the same time approve such hooks of course. Fram (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   While this factually correct, there is a little bit of context missing here, which is that TLC wanted to approve the "some dick" DYK (insert your own pun here) for April Fools Day, where the rules have traditionally been a bit different, and then accepted a "that's not ok either" gracefully. —Kusma (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   I don't think the "context" of the general disfunctionality of DYK really helps in any way, and it remains a clear example of a complete inability to "read the room" and trying to find some wriggle room to get it on the main page in the way the pomotor prefered and the community disliked. Feeling the need to give an editor DYK credit for an article they butchered to get as many "cocks" in it as possible, is poor form; using "April fool's" as an excuse to do so in such a childish manner is worse. At the same time claiming that the ban is not necessary because the "veto" system works is just bizarre. Fram (talk) 10:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   And if you want more evidence of the disfunctionality of DYK and the role of TLC in it, take a look at e.g. Template:Did you know nominations/Veronica Volkersz, promoted by TLC to run on the main page. It claims in the hook that Volkersz was the first women to fly an operational jet fighter (September 1945), despite e.g. Hanna Reitsch flying in 1944 a Heinkel He 162 and a Messerschmitt Me 262. The article itself also claims "A woman did not fly an RAF jet again until 1992, when Jo Salter was trained to fly Tornadoes." even though e.g. Mary Ellis (pilot) also flew Meteors, and Diana Barnato Walker flew an RAF English Electric Lightning in 1963. Now, promoting this isn't sufficient for an oppose here, but it is indicative of the "DYK on the mainpage is more important than getting things right" attitude still prevalent at DYK it seems, and we don't need even more admins from this group. Fram (talk) 10:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   Fram, in that DYK, it was TLC who vetoed both hooks for being offensive. That kind of proves the opposite of your point. Levivich 15:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   ...and then accepted a third one, making their previous actions rather pointless. I don't get why, after it had become clear that the community was fed up with the CofE DYK issues, and after it had become clear that CofE had badly manipulated the text of the article to support his dosruption, it still would be considered a good idea to approve a childish hook on the very same article. Such a poor lapse in judgment isn't really disproven by previous better judgment. Fram (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   ...and then accepted a third one for April Fools because a previous similar hook was approved for the prior April Fools without incident, as was pointed out in the DYK and here. You're making it sound like they stupidly let an offensive hook through for the yucks, but actually they did the opposite. You give no credit for them stopping an offensive hook, and then following precedent. You are not accurately conveying the facts of the matter. Even after multiple people have pointed out your errors, you haven't struck or adjusted anything in your oppose rational. Since you're usually pretty good at accurately conveying facts, I won't let your poor lapse in judgment here overshadow your previous better judgment. Levivich 15:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   Gee, I wonder why people complain about badgering of opposes. Strangely, no one in the opposes seems to have any need to badger supports or to even call out the supports in their oppose statements, but on the supporting side some people have no issue with belittling the opposes. But yeah, the opposes are the real issue at RfA, sure. Following precedent at the notoriously dysfunctional DYK and the too often problematic April fools "humour" is not the recommendation you apparently think it is. And to take your reasoning, even after multiple people have opposed "per fram", you still dare to question this. Fallacy, right? Then don't try the same here. Thank you for the compliment at the end, too bad I won't return it. Fram (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   The problem with "per Fram" is that Fram didn't tell the truth and won't fix the mistakes when they're pointed out. Hence, I need to point that out, lest more editors be fooled by your inaccurate vote rationale. Levivich 15:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   You mean "didn't tell the truth" in my statement where Kusma (politely and in an acceptable way) started with "this is factually correct", but which you still use to support your claim that multiple poeple claim I "didn't tell the truth"? In reality, I have fixed all the mistakes you pointed out. Happy? Fram (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   Since I'm accusing you of lying in an rfa oppose rationale let me be clear: The two hooks were veto'ed, the proposal to get them DYK banned was well supported, so theleekycauldron swoops in and decides to approve "that some dick sold a casino without getting the sale written down?" for mainpage appearance. That sentence is a lie because it doesn't say that TLC is the one who veto'd two hooks. "Swoops in" is a lie that makes it seem like someone else veto'd the hooks and then TLC swooped in, which is the opposite of what actually happened. Also it omits the April Fool's part. Levivich 16:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   You've had your say now, what, 5 times? Apparently you believe that people can't read or will ignore Kusma's statement, but somehow will get your breathless repetitions, reinforced by your "mature" statements about the opposition in your own support statement, and by the bolding you feel is necessary to use. Oh no, I replied, now you will need to do your show one more time. It's a good thing we don't judge a nominee by the people who support them, as TLC can hardly be blamed for your actions. Fram (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   @Fram: I believe you have misgendered the candidate in the first sentence of your comment above—please may you correct it? — Bilorv (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   Thanks, corrected, I do this too often (not deliberately, and not meant to indicate anything positive or negative). If you notice other instances, feel free to drop a note or to correct them yourselves. Fram (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   Sidenote: @Fram: Since you mentioned that you often unintentionally misgender, you might want to use {{they}} to avoid this. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 17:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

8. Oppose. I rarely vote, but I'm going to oppose because, as mentioned above, the candidate deleted this comment [2] about their performance. An administrator should not attempt to conceal substantive criticism about their performance. To paraphrase Harry Truman, "If you can't stand the heat, don't go in the kitchen." Smallchief (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
9. Oppose - I avoid this cesspool like I avoid most Wikispace, but there's enough here at a read through - it's regrettable I stopped to look in - to motivate me to explicitly oppose: 1) having had a talk archive dedicated to calling specific editors stupid –
   I don't even need to reference Fram and Smallchief's opposes as that alone is enough to just write off the candidate. I will say that the self-importance in that edit summary provided by Smallchief is just too displeasing to completely ignore. If you cannot cope with mildly delivered criticism, you do not have the prerequisite attitude to wield the mop to the benefit of the encyclopedia.
   On a separate note, for the kettle of vultures that exist primarily to badger people in this section: . Mr rnddude (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   If you don't like vultures, then why leave such sweet carrion out in the open? So, just to be clear: calling people stupid is a big no no N; calling people a kettle of vultures is very approved Y, yes? Noted. AlexEng^(TALK) 11:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   @AlexEng It is maybe getting a little excessive? I think we all want to get rid of the tense atmosphere at RfA. Please do seriously consider for each of your comments whether the importance of your point weighs up against any further polarisation and tension that it may cause. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 12:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) @PJvanMill: that's a somewhat fair point, but are we more concerned about tension for prospective candidates or for those who would tear them down and preemptively call people who would respond to them "vultures"? Maybe this isn't the best place for sarcasm or levity, and I could have written a more polite response or ignored it altogether. I took that emoji to mean that the user was not interested in actually discussing their views and contributing to consensus-building. If I was wrong, then I apologize. AlexEng^(TALK) 12:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   I'll give you a few things to consider. First, your response was tu quoque. You didn't address the substance of my !vote. Second, you were incorrect in your assessment. I made a direct reference to satisfy (badger and satisfy are the same). The above doesn't look like consensus-building, it looks like bludgeoning or - as I put it - a kettle of vultures (circling above looking for their next meal, the next oppose). Third, and finally, nobody is going to supplant their views with yours. Too few editors in this space seem to comprehend that as pestering of minority opposition has been a staple of rfa for years. It is haram to oppose a popular candidate. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   You're not completely wrong about that first bit. Where I think it falls short of tu quoque is that I didn't say your argument was incorrect. I merely pointed at perceived hypocrisy, which makes your second sentence entirely correct. Having thought that you were dropping your !vote and leaving, I was hoping to spur you to re-engage in a meaningful discussion rather than to rebut your point in as sarcastic a manner as possible. I also think it falls short of WP:BADGER. I know all too well that people debating typically just get entrenched in their pre-existing views. But debates on Wikipedia don't happen in a vacuum. My goal is to sway the reader's view by making good points in a discussion with you; that should be your goal too, as that is how consensus building works in a forum like RfA. Accordingly, I wanted you to come back and defend your points for the benefit of the community discussion. So, if you please, can you clarify why your above points weigh so heavily that they are enough to just write off the candidate? We don't typically expect perfection from our admins, after all. Are you making the argument that this is a consistent pattern of negative behavior? That it's intractable or egregiously negative? Don't let me put words in your mouth. I'd like to hear your opinion. AlexEng^(TALK) 18:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   I wasn't going to reply, but to allay any concerns: I can cope with being badgered ; I dislike seeing others subjected to it. For the record, as it ought to be considered, I have not created a page dedicated to calling individual editors out as vultures in my userspace. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

10. Oppose per Brox; age is no guarantee of maturity or wisdom. We already have plenty of admins who demonstrate "poor judgement and immaturity", and I don't doubt must of them are looking at their 30s in the rear-view mirror. The removal of the post as raised by Smallchef is also concerning: regardless of the snide edit summary, they were effectively having their close challenged and they failed to observe ADMINACCT in response, to any degree whatsoever. In the area they want to administrate. They may not have liked their close being described as shameful: I can understand that. All the more reason to observe policy, defend and account for your actions, and in doing so take the moral high ground.
    I assume WP:TOOSOON WP:NOTQUITEYET hasn't been deprecated also? Then that probably applies right now.
    And yes, Mr rnddude, I agree with you wrt the bludgeoning. SN54129 11:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

    I'd also like to clarify something, since "call to the crats" has now been made (less than 24 hours in!): many of the opposes are opposing on the grounds of maturity. This is not the same as opposing on grounds of age. Many supports seem to be—unintentionally I'm sure—conflating the two. As I said here, and I think others have made a similar point, age != wisdom and youth =/= immaturity, or in either case confer the other. If maturity is considered an issue, this does not mean that youth is a problem. SN54129 17:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

11. Oppose The nominee's age is a concern for me. I think User:Maile66 and User:Valereee have potentially made a good choice as I've seen User:theleekycauldron work, but is far too soon. I don't think the editor is sufficiently old enough for the position. scope_creep^Talk 12:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
12. Oppose Not comfortable with this choice; in line with Athaenara, Beeblebrox, & Fram. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 12:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
13. Oppose – Principally for the lapses in judgment described by Giraffer (with respect to the relatively recent (September 2021) removal of valid criticism from the candidate's talk page, and archiving to a derogatorily-named subpage, in lieu of taking the mature path of engaging the criticism in discussion) and by Fram (with respect to an additional instance of decision-making (January 2022) that I view as reflective of immature judgment in the manner Fram outlines in their comment here as of 10:20 UTC, 28 Jan.). In particular, with respect to the Sept. 2021 incident, administrators are expected to engage criticism; I certainly agree with the candidate's well-written response to Q3, that one should never edit when stressed, but the answer to Q6 does not provide reassurance that a similar incident would be handled in a manner appropriate for an administrator in the near future—the answer is to take a short breather, and then properly reengage the comment, not to not recognize and then choose to ignore valid concern; it is common here, unfortunately, for folks to criticize administrative conduct in less than cordial terms (and this is something administrators must be able to deal with appropriately and maturely), but the tone of that note did not strike me as having been made in bad faith, certainly did not merit the responsive action taken (i.e. the subpage), and most certainly deserved a reasoned response given the justifiable concern regarding the candidate's prior involvement. Per Beeblebrox, my inclination is not to look to a candidate's age as a definitive indicator of maturity because, to SN54129's point, I have observed instances of stunning immaturity in administrators who've claimed to be much older than the candidate. I have likewise seen prodigious young people here whose maturity far surpasses their biological age. Actions, to me, are much more illustrative of one's general disposition. And the actions described in the opposes thus far, as I've outlined in my !vote, suggest a candidate who is not yet quite ready to jump into the sysop role, though I am hopeful the candidate will be ready and willing to take on the role in a couple of years or so. In the event this RFA passes, however, I would wish the candidate all the very best, and would hope that they would take on board the comments here in formulating a more deliberative approach going forward. Best, Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 13:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
14. Weak Oppose for now per Tyrol5, I am also mostly concerned by the "I see dumb people" page which was quite recent. I appreciate the user's response in Q6 and will probably be able to support her given more time. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
15. Absolutely not. Has yet to demonstrate the judgment, discretion and maturity that I feel are required for the role.—S Marshall T/C 13:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
16. Oppose -- I don't think the candidate's maturity is quite there yet. -- Dolotta (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
17. Oppose - per Giraffer, Beeblebrox, and Fram. The shenanigans at DYK about C of E and getting provocative content onto the main page show me that there are issues with maturity. DYK needs MORE maturity than editing the rest of the 'pedia, since it's featured on the main page. We shouldn't be enabling provocative stuff just for giggles. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
18. Oppose -- I think it would be useful to have more admins. I think TLC has a lot of interest for DYK and would in the future be a great admin within that space. However, as the editor has displayed some immaturity in the last few months (having only been active for ~1 year) as well as having made some decisions within DYK that were unadvisable, I think it's perhaps a bit too early to become an admin (I'd also quote ScottyWong: I understand that the nominee intends to work primarily at DYK, but becoming an admin means you can use the admin tools wherever you want, and we have to assume that they could eventually wade into other areas). However, I think TLC is an excellent editor and a net benefit to the community, so I am hopeful that if this RfA fails that they'll consider trying in 6 months or a year after having demonstrated growth in the areas criticized within the RfA. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

    I'd also like to add that I don't think TLC's age has any strong relevance as to how able they'll be as an admin, and opposing RfAs exclusively based on one archive's name and age seems like weak reasoning when a) there is a real need for more admins, b) TLC has made great content, and c) their AfD record and conduct in discussions shows a much better image of their conduct. Looking forward to their next RfA if this one fails :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

19. Oppose - Apart from enabling people like C of E, the nominee has also created Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness controversy which to me looks like trivia that does not belong on this website.--Catlemur (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

    You are not alone, but this seems to be a minority view: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness controversy. —Kusma (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

20. Oppose due to a lack of maturity. Note that this oppose has nothing to do with age (I didn't even realize that this editor was 16 until reading the other opposes), but for an overall pattern of behavior that I've seen from this editor over the past year or so. Things like Special:Diff/1056183528, where their response to wide criticism of their actions was to dig in their heels out of spite, or the immature list archive pages they made in their userspace. WP:NOTQUITEYET. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 16:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

    For clarity: by "immature list pages", are you referring to the talk archive titles, or something else? I can't seem to find anything else that could be an issue. eviolite (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

    Yes. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 17:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

    @Ahecht, just for clarity (and not intending to badger your oppose), what are you interpreting that diff to mean? Because once the hook goes on the main page, TLC had no control over whether it was pulled or not, and indeed less than an hour earlier TLC had said "pull it". Is it possible you're misinterpreting what happened and what TLC was saying? valereee (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

    As the person to whom that diff was directed: First of all, my comment there was way out of the line, and I struck parts of it later on and then disengaged from the discussion—so if anything I was at the very least partially at fault there. Second, and as I expressed to leeky on the next day [3], I was in no way singling out their actions there, since I recognized that DYK hooks go through a lot of different filters before coming to the main page, including the nom, the review and the admin move (see Wikipedia:Did you know § The DYK process), none of which were done by leeky. Regardless, leeky unilaterally took responsibility for the image [4], which they were in no way obliged or prompted to do. I'm honestly pretty sad that this diff is used as some sort of evidence of inadequacy for adminship because in the wider context leeky's behavior, including their response to my talk page message, was in my view entirely mature and appropriate. JBchrch talk 18:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

21. Strong oppose. They may become a good admin sometime in the future, but they're WP:NOTQUITEYET, as evidenced by all the comments about the nominee's lack of maturity and sometimes poor judgment. I suggest re-applying in a year's time. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
22. Oppose. It is readily apparent that the candidate lacks experience and maturity, and as a result demonstrates poor judgement. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
23. Smallchief's diff and its archival to User talk:Theleekycauldron/Archive/i see dumb people (for those who haven't connnected the dots in A6) are too recent and far too serious. —Cryptic 17:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
24. oppose for now (this Rfa). I rarely oppose, but at this time I have to. I am all in for admins with specialised area of interest, but admin accountability is a must for me. The candidate lacks that (diff has been provided above already). Even though I don't expect a huge experience, I expect just a little experience (to show familiarity of policies) of different areas. The candidate lacks that as well, like Giraffer has mentioned in their oppose argument. Also, I don't want my comment about an improper close/action to end up on "user talk:theleakycauldron/whiny editors" without being responded to. Also per k6ka, Fram, Beeblebrox, smallchief, and Harry Truman. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
25. Oppose significant maturity concerns. Therapyisgood (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
26. Regretful oppose due to maturity (not age) concerns. I was on the fence, but Ahect's diff above (from two months ago) puts me here. WP:NOTQUITEYET. Miniapolis 18:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

    @Miniapolis: Since you were on the fence and were moved by this diff that involved me, I just wanted to let you know that I've explained its broader context a few lines above that, which may (or may not) make you reconsider. JBchrch talk 19:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

27. regretfull oppose at this time You have been active for about a year now. While I can support people with 1 year of activity in some cases, this requires that the user demonstrates that he/she has sufficient maturity and experience on Wikipedia to get the tools. I am not seeing this in this case. While being 16 is an age at which I would generally consider an application (I know several people IRL who had, or almost had, the maturity of an adult when they were 16), however, the far-too-recent creation of User talk:Theleekycauldron/Archive/i see dumb people is a giant red flag. I am also not particularely impressed to find non-bot (and some semi-automated messages such as talkback notices) at User_talk:Theleekycauldron/Archive/bots_gonna_bot. theleekycauldron, please don't feel discouraged about how this rfa has run. I would consider a new RfA in 1 year, provided that no other issiues arrive. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
28. Regretful oppose. I have no problem with a 16 year old admin. Indeed, it is encouraging to see young people willing to step up to take on important responsibilities. We have a CU who's not much older than that, don't we? I'm not very familiar with TLC, but I've seen them around a bit and haven't observed anything that raises a red flag. But I just can't get past the edit summary here. I'm fine with people making mistakes. That's how you learn. You can't learn if you're not willing to examine your actions when questioned. Blowing off a complaint with "you may not talk to me that way" isn't what we're looking for in an admin. Even if the complaint is bogus (and in this case it appears to be the contrary; quite valid) you need to have a thick skin. I also believe that anybody is entitled to the occasional faux pas, but such things fade with time. This one was only 4 months ago, which gives me pause. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
29. Per k6ka, Fram, Smallchief - lack of experience, maturity, and sense of responsibility. ansh.666 19:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
30. Oppose Still young and immature for an admin at this time. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 20:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
31. Oppose per age; given that adminship has actual legal ramifications on WMF's side, it is ideal (of course not completely mandatory, mind you) for admins to be actual legal adults before they can see sensitive material that can include such grotesque things as child pornography or animal mutilation. 16 isn't that terribly young – I started editing when I was 13, and took up my modern account at 21 – but combined with other maturity concerns a wait of two years seems perfect in this case. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

    @John M Wolfson: an admin should not be able to view child pornography on this website, as it should be subject to suppression, correct? An admin may come across a case that is yet to be suppressed and should revdel and flag for suppression, but a non-admin could similarly come across this case and should do the same, minus the revdelling. I've certainly never come across child pornography imagery, but as a non-admin I have had to report to OS several extremely degrading edits—one (which was a graphic description of child abuse) sticks in my head as being only 15 words long but made me feel physically sick (that is, instantaneous nausea) when I read it. So I'm not quite following how a (non-OS) admin should have more exposure than non-admins to illegal and trauma-causing material. — Bilorv (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

32. Oppose. I have had good interactions with leeky at DYK, and she is an enthusiastic, helpful editor. Young editors can be great administrators: a couple later served on the Arbitration Committee and one of our stewards became a CheckUser as a minor. However, I have too many concerns about leeky's judgement and temperament. The insulting subpages were only deleted after she began thinking of a run; that its inappropriate nature had to be pointed out calls her judgement into question by itself. Moreover, her promotion of a crude GIF to the Main Page is concerning as DYK is her only area of interest and she went from joking about it to taking "full responsibility" to partially blaming others minutes later.
    If this RfA passes, she will face things far worse than someone calling an involved close "shameful". I hope she will not react by calling the questioners dumb, as she will be required to be accountable. Yet the candidate states that she is "not sure [she'd] engage a comment like that with a response today. But [she] would probably quietly shelve it". That is worrying. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
33. Oppose per above. Concerns with judgement and temperament. To be clear, this has nothing to do with age. -FASTILY 23:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
34. Oppose Due to concerns relating to the welfare of minors. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

    Just to clarify, there is absolutely nothing that this candidate has done that seems to be concerning w/re the welfare of minors. The concern expressed by this commenter is likely regarding protecting the candidate. valereee (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

35. Oppose this has been mentioned but no one has directly explained the problems with it, and it is worth explaining in detail if this goes to crat chat. IronGargoyle (courtesy ping) posted this diff on theleekycauldron's talk page. Raising a concern about a close of an RfC, which is ordinarily considered an activity that would be subject to admin accountability even though it isn't an explicit use of the tools. There was nothing inappropriate or uncivil about the remark. theleekycauldron then removed it with this comment, refusing to be accountable for their quasi-administrative action when another user had respectfully questioned them, and pretending like the other user was at fault. Then, 13 days later, they added it to User talk:Theleekycauldron/Archive/i see dumb people as a new section and new diff after the initial creation of that archive deleted diff, admin only.
    Those are the facts. Now let's talk about the implications. A user closed a discussion and received feedback they would ordinarily be expected to respond to under our policies. They did not, and somehow played the victim for being questioned. They then, two weeks later, not in a fit of anger created a talk page archive to mock people. After They created the talk page, they realized a few minutes later that there was another discussion they wanted to mock, and went back and added the section of someone asking them about a close they performed to it.
    If an admin were to have done this, someone should open a case at ARC and get them desysoped. It's one thing to ignore accountability. Its an entirely different level to ignore accountability and then to make fun of the people requesting you explain yourself later in such a crude way that is also very clearly calculated.
    I do not think that someone who has done something that would be worthy of an ArbCom case for a potential desysop within the last 4 months should pass RfA. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
36. Oppose per Tony, Sdrqaz, &c. Too many recent and serious issues with judgment and civility. Spicy (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
37. Oppose per Ballioni's note of aggressive behavior. Lack of experience and maturity. Try again in five years time. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC).
38. Oppose - I dont feel confortable with seeing this user getting a mop with all the facts presented. GamerPro64 02:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
39. Oppose - As someone who was here at a similiarly young age I'm not really concerned about that, but TonyBalloni's comment makes me a bit uncomfortable with their maturity level at this time. aboideau^{talk to me!} 03:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
40. Oppose. I appreciate the ping. The involved DYK close showed poor judgment and would be enough reason for me to oppose. Later being told that I wasn't allowed to criticize, being mocked on a childish list of "dumb people" (yes, I was pinged when the archive was first created) and the many other incidents cited above demonstrate a pattern of immature behavior that only strengthens my opposition. I guess I should be glad that I've now been upgraded from "dumb" to "less fun". IronGargoyle (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
41. Oppose: adminship is generally not for minors, IMO. Wikipedia is an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", including children, but not everyone should be able to administer it. Plus adminship comes with a lot of toxicity that admins have to deal with, i.e. potential doxxing, harassment, etc. It's best to wait a couple of years, and then reevaluate. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

    16 year olds can legally join the US Army, go, kill or get killed, but editing a website would be too dangerous? (BTW, I voted Oppose) — kashmīrī ^TALK 04:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

    "Editing a website" is not the same thing as being a Wiki admin, as my comment alludes to. Separately, the info about 16yo being able to "kill" by joining the US military is incorrect. Minimum age of enlistment in the US is 17 with parental consent and 18 without. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

    My bad. It's 16 in the UK.[5] But still, our decisions have traditionally been based on individual skills and capacity, and not on crude bureaucratic criteria like age. For a reason. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

42. Oppose. I originally supported, but this list of "dumb people" very much bothered me. While debating this in my head, I thought the deciding factor should be if this was a list for sorting, venting, or if it was a snide attack on others. The sorting is unlikely, and gives me pause for integrity. IronGargoyle confirms he was pinged when it was created, ergo this was meant to be seen and was an attack. Ifnord (talk) 05:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
43. Oppose (moved from support) based on the nonsensical answer to Q17. The maturity in recognizing that the hook was a mistake was the basis of my support; since the candidate no longer thinks that it should have been pulled in the interests of retaining and respecting women on this platform, I oppose with regret. Urve (talk) 06:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
44. Oppose per serious recent behavioural issues highlighted by TonyBallioni. Polyamorph (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
45. Very Regretful Oppose - I have had positive interactions with Leaky and wish them well. 16 is my absolute cut-off for anything “adult” which adminship unfortunately is, and to give support to a 16 y/o they would have to show good levels of maturity, but I don’t think they are quite there yet.
    On the questions of age raised above, I can see a 16 y/o admin but not anything younger, and for preference 18 or over. Obviously I say this coming from the UK where 16 is the cut-off for joining the army (with parental consent), marriage (with parental consent), sexual consent, working, getting a learner drivers license etc., and 18 is the age at which you can vote in a general election and at which parental consent is no longer needed for marriage/joining up. To state the obvious, admins have to deal with some of the worst and most distressing content on Wikipedia, including threats of suicide, accusations of sexual offences and so-forth. I frankly think it would be a dereliction of our duty towards children of 15 and under to invite them to deal with such matters.
    Some have raised the issue of admins or even bureaucrats elected as minors. I think these were clear mistakes and we should not allow the cases where it turned out alright to blind us to the many cases where we have appointed admins of unknown age (but in retrospect clear immaturity) who a number of years later were desysopped. Probably admins should be required to disclose their age, and minors explicitly barred, but this is another discussion. FOARP (talk) 07:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
46. Oppose actively harmful at DYK. Hipocrite (talk) 09:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
47. Oppose - seems like a good editor, but too inexperienced. GiantSnowman 09:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
48. Likewise regretful oppose. Regretful partly because my own interactions with TLC have been positive, and if this RfA fails I don't want to see such an enthusiastic contributor become demoralized, and partly because I don't want to come down as the same side as those opposing based on age. In my opinion, it is no more acceptable to oppose based on age than to oppose based on gender, religion, or ethnicity. Empiricallly we have had cases of admins 16 and well younger than that who did perfectly good jobs. I believe our youngest admin ever was 12. He was made a 'crat a year later. To my knowledge he was a fairly uncontroversial admin. So if this is still in the discretionary range after 7 days, and the reviewing 'crat(s) are weighing how the community stands on the age question, please read this as the strongest possible oppose to that opposition.
    But age is distinct from maturity, as many have said, and I think a lack of maturity is the AGF explanation of the behavior that Tony describes, so it's the one I'll go with. I'm not sure if that on its own would get me to oppose, but the answer to my question, I'm afraid, does. An admin who's going to be placing content on the Main Page about living people needs to be intimately familiar with the nuances of BLP. Reverting to restore allegations of felony sexual misconduct, which an editor in good standing has identified as a BLP violation, where that content has two citations, both of which are reports on the existence of a lawsuit without any independent corroboration by the news outlets in question, is fairly startling to me. TLC acknowledges here that it wasn't a certain call, but in their revert summary they say There's no way we can leave this out. I'm starting an RfC if this becomes a war. This being content that they themself had added to the article's lede and to the article on the subject's employer.
    I really don't want to be the kind of person who opposes over one bad series of edits, especially when I like the candidate, and especially when I disagree with a lot of the opposes. I was hoping that their answer to my question would reassure me that they understand BLPCRIME and that this was a one-off issue, but I'm afraid that's not the impression I get. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 09:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

    @Tamzin: I'm a bit confused by this comment. The subject is not a low-profile individual, so the only applicable part of WP:BLPCRIME is A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. However, the text (bar the section header) made clear the exact legal status of the allegations. You asked a question to the candidate about BLPCRIME (not more generally whether the text violated BLP), and they gave the only correct answer: "Smolin is a high-profile individual". — Bilorv (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

    @Bilorv: I'm not sure that I agree that Smolin, a high-school teacher who hosts a non-notable radio show, has released some non-notable albums, and has written some non-notable books, is a public figure. If he is, it's marginal. Beyond that, BLPCRIME and BLP as a whole are usually taken to strongly disfavor so much weight being given to a set of allegations made in an unsubstantiated lawsuit: a sentence in the lede and five in the body, added at the same time that a fair bit was cut from the article as promotional, leaving it as the longest section in the whole article. In my opinion that goes against BLPBALANCE and UNDUE, and I thought that the broader BLP issues would be implicit in my question. But if you or anyone else thinks I should ask a second question about BLP and Smolin more generally, I'm happy to. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 10:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

    @Tamzin: if every part of Smolin's life is non-notable then I am confused as to why we host an article on the subject; nonetheless, this is a slight tangent as Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual makes clear that Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. Hosting a radio show, publicly releasing music and authoring books are all ways of seeking out media attention. If your issue is with something that BLPCRIME doesn't actually say, such as your interpretation of what the purpose/spirit of it is rather than the letter, then neither your question nor oppose here made that clear to me. However, I really feel that this is an oppose over two reasonable human beings interpreting the same policies and guidelines in sensible but different ways, which you say yourself you don't want to be in the business of doing. — Bilorv (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

    I think that TLC is a generally reasonable person, but I don't think that "It's okay to revert an explicit appeal to BLP in order to maintain the state of an article's longest section being about allegations of felony sex offenses made in a single lawsuit that neither cited news organization has been able to corroborate, with a mention of that fact in the three-sentence lede" is a reasonable interpretation of our policies and norms regarding biographies of living people. And I don't think that looking at a question about that article and distilling the matter to "high-profile == okay" shows a strong understanding of the policies and norms at play. As you say, it shouldn't just be about just this one case, and it's not. Their response doesn't give me the impression they understand the importance of BLP as a policy, because frankly I'd expect an admin looking at that article to immediately recognize the issue with it. And I don't want to pile on to my already long oppose, but since you're asking, I'm also not very comfortable with the idea that a rough consensus is needed to remove a hook that links to a BLP-violating article. That's the kind of thing an admin should be willing to take bold action on if they judge the BLP concerns to be reasonable. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 11:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

49. I am not troubled by the age; what makes me oppose is the multitude of problems mentioned above about the candidate in areas I give importance to in a sysop candidate in especial. The first is the maturity problem: removing valid criticism from their talk page with the summary "you may not talk to me that way" instead of responding to it, and 13 days later archiving it in a subpage titled with an unequivocal personal attack smacks of immaturity. That the candidate did not realise the consequences of the latter action and did not delete that archive until being told the consequences of having that archive at ORCP is particularly surprising. Had the candidate made that archive in the heat of the moment and quickly realised their mistake, there might have been some mitigation; but given the length of time between the initial criticism and the creation of that archive, I see no room for any mitigation. I would expect any candidate for sysop tools to have sufficient maturity at least to converse civilly with others during disputes and to understand the gravity of personal attacks and not make them. Secondly are the concerns with TLC's understanding of the all-important BLP policy, as highlighted above by Tamzin. I also am not fully convinced, based on a quick perusal of the candidate's Commons talk page, that they have a good understanding of copyright, which I hold to be essential for any sysop, especially one working at DYK. All these issues are too recent for me to ignore them even a little. Sorry, but I feel that TLC, while a valued contributor, is not quite ready for the mop. JavaHurricane 10:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
50. Regretful Oppose. I have not had any interactions with TLC as such and the opposition based on age alone is not something I would consider make-or-break, but it's the other rationales, particularly by TonyBalloni that makes me think adminship is not for the candidate "quite yet". I do feel encouraged by the candidates answer to Q20 and their direct response to TB's oppose that they can learn from mistakes, but this does fall into the (im)maturity consideration and I have no doubt the candidate's judgement will be considerably improved if they waited a little longer. The issues noted have happened just a little bit too recently for me, unfortunately. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral with moral support for now. I have interacted with this user at DYK and recently reviewed their GANs, and every interaction I have had on those fronts has been positive. Some of the questions raise a few concerns, and I'm awaiting responses on those. Personally, I don't find the !oppose votes on tenure very compelling, per WP:NOTENOUGH. 1.5 years of activity is more than enough to learn the ropes. — GhostRiver 01:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   Addition: While still waiting to make up my mind one particular way, I can say that, as a person who currently works with a great deal of 16-year-olds, there are some that I would trust with the tools and some that I wouldn't trust to take a paper clip to the next room over. While I wouldn't support, say, an admin under 13, the candidate's age is of no concern to me. — GhostRiver 16:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

2. Neutral until they answer most of the optional questions. ––FormalDude talk 08:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
3. Neutral I recommend pulling this request and waiting two years (e.g. age 18). At that point, if the good contributions continue, I think you sail right through. You don’t want to be an admin until you are ready. It could just lead to unhappiness. Meanwhile, explore other areas of Wikipedia beyond DYK. There are a great many ways to contribute without being an admin, or acting as an “admin without tools.” Jehochman ^Talk 10:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   I want to support the comments of Jclemens that adminship is not for minors.[6] As an admin you are likely to be exposed to toxicity, abuse, harassment, gross revdel'ed content, that is not appropriate for a minor. I am not opposing because I don't want to pile on or be discouraging to a strong future candidate. Jehochman ^Talk 16:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

4. Neutral for now. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   Moved to oppose Neutral with moral support for now. I'm waiting for responses to the other questions, and some of the concerns about impatience/behavior raised in the oppose votes seem to hold to an extent. However, my interactions with the user are nothing but excellent within DYK. I'm hesitant to support underage editors from being admin, but don't see that as a good enough stand-alone reason to oppose.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

5. Neutral pending answers to optional questions. I am pre-emptively going to note that no-one seems to be able to highlight much in the way of maturity failures, so relying on their self-dislosure to oppose, to me, is poor. Especially as DYK is not the cesspool that, say, AE can be. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   Neutral for now. Much like the other neutral !votes, I'd like to see some of the optional questions answered as well. The willingness to accept past lapses in judgement (as shown in question 6), however, makes me lean support. Chlod (say hi!) 11:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   Moved to support. Chlod (say hi!) 04:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

6. Neutral pending answer to Q7, which I hope will fully reassure me they've learned from that particular incident. I'm already seeing a little bit of that in Q6. The age-based opposes are nonsense in my opinion: disclosing one's age should not be penalised, and if we would otherwise not be able to tell, this chance information should not change our decision. PJvanMill)talk( 11:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
7. Neutral leaning oppose: I've some concerns about the implications of granting Adminship to TLC (and birth age is not one of them). My opposition is mostly on the basis of her editing activity as raised by many editors before me. The existence of pages named I see dumb people here, the word Fuck in at least two instances of which one seem to be demeaning another editor, the Belle Delphine DYK debacle and the decision to remove a genuine criticism from her talk page not as a regular cleanup but apparently as a way to hide it from plain sight raises some questions. I wouldn't be casting a vote until she answer the questions raised above or if they don't in which case I'll be opposing this request. In either case, I see TLC as a great editor who does much of the behind the scenes work on DYK nomination area and I wish her the best. Regards, ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 13:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
8. Neutral I would have liked to see more content creation, and I'm a little concerned about the similarity with another username. I don't see any clear reason to oppose and would consider supporting in future. Deb (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   Am I reading it right that you are holding it against the user for someone else having a similar username? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   I'm not holding anything against them, I just think a change of username might be advisable. Maybe the "and" was inappropriate. Deb (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

   @Deb: I mean this in the most respectful of ways, but TLC has a featured article, a featured list, and three good articles to their name; that's a lot more than I and many others would ask for in a RfA candidate, and I'm genuinely curious what more you would have liked to see? --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 17:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

9. Moral support: This editor is clearly operating in good faith, enthusiastic, and here to build an encyclopedia. I'm not really concerned about their age directly - it's plenty possible for a 16-year-old to have the experience and maturity needed to be an admin. Every editor is entitled to make mistakes from time to time, and every editor does so. However, the frequency and significance of the mistakes this editor has been making are sufficient that they should not be an admin right now, which would magnify both the consequences and the scrutiny of possible mistakes. Take some time to keep on improving as an editor, and I would be happy to support. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
10. Neutral, cannot decide which one I lean towards I want to support, but I cannot — I’m not really concerned with WP:NONEED, as that is redundant, but I’m more or less concerned with their maturity. There is a certain thing with brain development, and the prefrontal cortex, which controls rational thinking, isn’t really developed until age 25 (citing here). That research renders itself important when you figure out that becoming an admin requires rational thinking. However, I don’t really want to oppose, because in all fairness I’ve encountered there are young editors who can think at least semi-rationally. In light of the recent criticism over TLC’s maturity and having it held against them, I want to support, but I really think that this and this compels me to not support. It hasn’t been 6 months since that page was created, so I don’t think that’s especially old. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 16:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

    And possibly older ones who can't? ;-) Gog the Mild (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

    @Gog the Mild — Exactly. There are plenty of adults who act rather immaturely as well. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 16:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

    Even, upstanding pillar of the Wikipedian community that I am, myself on occasion. I draw your attention to a wholly gratuitous piece of main page scheduling. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

    @Gog the Mild — Yes. Although I think that’s more of WP:NOTCENSORED. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 16:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

    That the prefrontal cortex is not fully developed until age 25 is to say nothing of whether any individual person under 25 will behave in a more controlled, mature and rational manner than any individual person over 25. Many other factors such as upbringing, values, personality, life experiences and neurodiversity will affect behaviour much more. — Bilorv (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

    @Bilorv — Which is why I didn’t oppose. Certainly, TLC could behave and think rationally for someone who is just 16 years old. I mean, yeah, we had a… 12 year old bureaucrat? So, age and maturity are not correlated, yes. But if you follow the redlinks above, you’ll probably see some degree of immaturity. I’m on the fence between neutral and support, though. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 02:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

11. Neutral for now I've been thinking over this RfA, and waffling around, for most of the time it has been open, and indeed some time before. I've followed/interacted with TLC and knew (as much as one can) that this RFA would come shortly. I was just hoping they would wait a little longer. On the positive side: they have clearly done a great deal of beneficial work for the DYK process, including prep building, script writing, answering questions, and similar. Need is established. I generally came away with a positive impression the interactions we have had. I admire their candidness-- I would never have disclosed my age before an RFA, and it's good to be able to tell where a user stands. They have clearly grown and learned from past mistakes. Things I'm meh about: TLC clearly can write content, but seems to walk the line around sacrificing notability/neutrality for "sensationalism", that is, a good DYK hook. I still feel this clearly hasn't received the enduring coverage for a stand-alone article, and concerns over hooks like the C of E's and the Belle Delphine, to me, are in a similar vein. This, however, is arguably reflective of a flaw in DYK as a whole-- It can be, and is, gamed. Age doesn't concern me-- I was hardly 16 when I became an admin in 2020, and I don't think I've done terribly-- but I'm not ready to ignore some of the maturity concerns raised by opposes. Admins should be accountable and able to handle criticism. So I land in neutral, for now, but that may well change. I think, regardless of the success of this request, that TLC should read and take the (constructive) advice to heart and hopefully grow from it. I cannot emphasize enough how much I appreciate their work here, and how much their enthusiasm has been like a breath of fresh air. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
12. Neutral Whilst has done some good things, I think their tenure is a bit too short. It's something I'd probably support in a couple of years of staying on track though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
13. Neutral. Generally, it seems to me that theleekycauldron does good work on this project, and it is also true that the project is in need of additional administrators. I don't think the candidate's numerical age is a categorical disqualifier—historically, we have seen successful examples of teenagers passing RfA, particularly when they demonstrate a level of maturity that causes no one to immediately realize that they are a teenager. Additionally, I don't think that the issue with the user talk page archives rises to the level of an oppose vote in light of the candidate's acknowledgement in Q6 that it was a mistake. Nevertheless, I think that there is enough doubt as to the candidate's temperament for me to hesitate listing myself in the support section. The archiving issue as well as the diff mentioned by Smallchief seem to be good evidence that the user has a tendency towards being impulsive when they find themselves in conflict with other editors. In Q3, the candidate states that their solution will simply be don't edit when stressed; however, as an editor (and especially as an administrator), you will inevitably find yourself in conflict with other editors—it is an unavoidable consequence of any project that requires collaboration between a diverse group of people. In light of that, it is important not only to avoid stress, but also to handle stressful situations appropriately when they do inevitably arise. Accordingly, I am in this neutral section and would encourage the candidate to apply for adminship again after an appropriate time if this current request is not successful. Mz7 (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

General comments

Not to be confused with User:Leaky caldron.

• I'm unlikely to do the research needed to support or oppose here, but for anyone else who is easily confused: this isn't current active editor User:Leaky caldron. If you associate the name with vague recollections of good or bad prior experience, make sure it's the right editor you're thinking of. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • They are similar enough that I'm surprised nobody is calling WP:SIMILARNAME. I can only presume one doesn't hold its contents well and the other is primarily used to make vichyssoise (an underrated soup, to the candidate's great credit). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I was notified. I had no objection. Leaky caldron (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

---

• Probably not a huge deal, but shouldn't this be at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Theleekycauldron instead? (as all usernames beginning in a letter begin in capital ones) --Ferien (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  Good point. I'll create a redirect for now. 28bytes (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  The user has stylized their username as all lowercase, so this RFA's capitalization fits their preference. My own username was originally intended to be stylized as all lowercase, but I am consistently inconsistent with that regard. It definitely isn't that big of a deal though. Now maybe we should move WP:Requests for adminship/K6ka to "WP:Requests for adminship/k6ka"? —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  There's the precedent of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/lustiger seth (a redirect was created a few years later). —Kusma (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Capitalization really does not matter in this context, it’s more of a matter of their personal preferences. It is noted, however, that all titles on a wiki begin with a capital letter. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 16:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Of course, personal preference is fine but that's not what RfA is for - RfA isn't really a userpage or somewhere for customisation... The username of the account is Theleakycauldron due to MediaWiki, so I just thought maybe we should name the RfA based on who we are actually giving the rights to. --Ferien (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Ferien — To the point: it doesn’t really matter. Not sure about you, but I would just shrug it off. What really matters is the quality of the candidate. Hopefully you understand. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 17:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  As I said, it was never a huge deal. I have already voiced my opinion about the candidate, just thought it was something pointing out. --Ferien (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @Ferien — Understandable. Have a nice day in the… Wikipedia neighborhood? — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 17:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

---

• @Maile66: Could you please elaborate on this? They are already part of a larger cross section of Wikipedians seeking ways to help the encyclopedia segue into the future as a contemporary participant of the global community. I'm not sure I understand the nature and scope of these efforts. Is there a link to a WikiProject or similar where I can read about it? AlexEng^(TALK) 01:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry for the confusion. That's my rosey vision and positive outlook on what many Wikipedians are doing. I assume good faith that a good hunk of Wikipedia is working towards not only building the encyclopedia, but also updating and editing to keep it relevant to each generation. There's a lot of editors who are "here today and gone tomorrow", but many stick around and work diligently, not only to offer new content, but to work on current events happening around the world. I see it everyday among editors on various projects. As Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians leave us, younger ones like TLC step forward to offer new ideas and new methods/ways to keep our project alive, and in some ways relevant to the next generation, and the next. — Maile (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for clarifying, Maile66. Not to belabor the point, but you're characterizing the nature and value of the candidate's overall contributions with that statement, right? Did I understand you correctly? I had initially thought that you were referring to a specific effort underway to modernize Wikipedia. I would have been quite interested in joining, if that were the case. AlexEng^(TALK) 06:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  AlexEng I was making a general statement, yes. I did not mean to indicate a specific planned effort, as I know of none. — Maile (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Not an answer (moved from Optional questions from Pahunkat)

Pahunkat, if I might butt in here with some links. This is that Gibraltar situation from 2012: [7] - As you can see, I'm the one who opened an RFC on what to do about the situation, which to my memory, was a constant stream of DYY nominations on that one subject matter. It came up recently at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 182#WandaVision, which is what TLC was referring to. It was before their time, but their comment was in reference to the mention that happened recently. Hope this helps you understand. — Maile (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

---

• I’m honestly disappointed that age is used as an excuse to oppose this RFA. Maturity is not a function of age but a function of the mind. Opposing due to age is not only premature, but a false preconceived notion that younger editors are not mature enough, and that would be jumping the gun, how about we support or oppose based on their proficiency? If in future they misbehave, I believe there are a plethora of other ways to deal with them (if it ever arises) but opposing due to the fact that they are young is just extremely premature, if they merit it, give them the mop, if they egregiously transgress after having the mop or show immaturity only then can an official report be filed, asides that, we are jumping the gun here or putting the cart before the horse, to corroborate my claim that maturity isn’t a function of age, we have observed elderly sysops and editors act very childish. Please the double standards are beginning to irate me. The age arguments are unsound and invalid. Furthermore isn’t our mantra that RFA isn’t a big deal? How come this candidate is being pilloried over trifling issues? Celestina007 (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Age disputes have been part of RfA its whole history. I personally disagree, but it's not the worst of the things I've seen opposes over. The interesting thing about them is that we quite recently (in the grand scale of the project's history) started oversighting people giving their age if it was under 16, when most of the RfAs with the most age contention were well below that mark. If a 12 year old ran RfA now, no one would know. Many of the discussions about and personal criteria set regarding RfA candidate ages were devised well before that became common practice, and don't necessarily intersect well with it. Vaticidalprophet 03:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Age is one of those rationales that I don't agree with personally, but also find totally understandable, and I say that as someone who passed RFB at a younger age than theleekycauldron (and I'm not even the record holder on that front). That whole time period, I was closeted about my age, but reading age-based opposition on the RFAs/RFBs of some of my peers was helpful to me, because it left me with a determination to conduct myself maturely and a realization that adminship could come with its dangers (which ScottyWong points out well in his rationale). Pass or not, I hope those are two realities that theleekycauldron can take to heart as she continues her editing career! bibliomaniac15 04:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  As a father of four children ages 12-23, I feel that age is a valid consideration but not disqualifying. It explains why there were some silly actions that we will discount a couple years from now if they are not repeated. Jehochman ^Talk 10:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Two of the ten opposes are based on age. Opposes can be for temperament/judgement concerns without being due to age. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Maturity is not a function of age but a function of the mind. Opposing due to age is not only premature, but a false preconceived notion that younger editors are not mature enough, and that would be jumping the gun, how about we support or oppose based on their proficiency? Very much disagree with this; while maturity may not be in a direct correlative relationship with age, they are certainly related, and the one is at least partly a function of the other. It seems to me that Celestina007 is using a blunt instrument to attack some very nuanced views; the Opposes based on or partially in view of the candidate's age are not, by and large, "Nope, too young"; even the most directly age-based, (Scottywong's) is somewhat nuanced. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 13:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

---

• Is the link to DTK in the opening paragraph of this nom supposed to say DYK? Also, I don't see the merit in declining a candidate based off their age. If they're mature enough, it shouldn't matter what that number is, and who knows how many 16 and under admins are out there without admitting their age? I don't feel comfortable participating in RfAs yet, but those are my two cents. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Good catch on DTK - you are correct. Meh ... what a shame some at Wikipedia are like this. Imagine what the world would have missed if others had been so myopic: Bill Gates wrote his first software program when he was a teenager. Chess genius Bobby Fisher, Albert Einstein, Mozart. What a shame. — Maile (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  I see your point, but the answer is probably not many, if any at all. Consider that there were only seven successful RfAs last year and only seventeen the year before that. If it's not one of them, then the prospective teen administrator would have had to have been confirmed at age 14 or younger, which becomes increasingly unlikely as you go back. I think the stronger point is that the candidate had no obligation to disclose their age, and it should not be used against them now that we know it. Candidates should be judged by their edits and behavior rather than by their physical characteristics. AlexEng^(TALK) 06:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  I wasn't really thinking about the actual substance of the point with 16 and under admins, but that could pretty easily be rephrased into "who knows how many admins were 16 or under when elected?". However, the general point should stand either way. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

---

I have not yet made up my mind about this RfA, but I want to address some of the particularly unfair Oppose rationales. I hope it is helpful to someone.

1. Age – whether or not you consider age to be a relevant factor in qualifications for adminship, I think it's important to be judging candidates by their contributions and their behavior. Rejecting a candidate based solely on age is poor rationale, because age indirectly affects one's maturity and competence. We have grown adults who can act childish; conversely, we have younger contributors whose age you might not have guessed if they didn't reveal it. This candidate voluntarily chose to disclose their age. It is disappointing to see editors use it against them. If you have complaints regarding maturity, please remember that an RfA is not a vote, and that consensus-building would be better served by providing specific examples of problematic behavior.
2. Deleting comments on one's own talk page – it's interesting that the candidate's edit, which deleted a subjectively offensive comment from their own talk page with a respectful edit summary, seems to outweigh roughly fourteen thousand constructive edits on the project. Setting aside the fact that this action is explicitly endorsed by guidelines, we don't expect administrators to be perfect. Moreover, deleting a notice or comment on one's talk page is typically taken to mean "message received." It is better than engaging in what may prove to be an unproductive discussion. If this deletion is so offensive to someone that it singlehandedly changed their mind on the candidate's RfA, then I really don't know what would meet their expectations.
3. User talk archives with silly or offensive names – out of all of the rationale I've seen, this is the only bit that carries at least some weight, from my perspective. It's probably not great, having not seen the actual discussions archived, but I'm not particularly convinced that it's egregious either. The mere act of archiving a discussion to a page with a mean name is not equivalent to, say WP:POLEMIC, or even direct confrontation. I temper my view of candidate's action in light of their well-reasoned response to the issue. Ultimately, they did request deletion themselves, well before this RfA. That seems important.

Even if I wind up in the Oppose section, it won't be for the reasons above. It's just frustrating to see these rationales used and reused, when they are minor concerns at best. And then we wonder why people don't want to stand for RfA; why we only had seven successful candidates last year while we lost sixty-two admins to inactivity, retirement, and desysops; why we needed a three-month long reform process that led to a slight wording change, an ineffectual unbundling of the autopatrolled right, and whatever the hell this is. Well, this is why. Corrosive atmosphere, level of scrutiny, standards needed to pass keep rising, which leads to too few candidates applying. Thank you, enwiki, and good night. AlexEng^(TALK) 11:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@AlexEng I would say any actual unfairness for both #2 and #3 would rather be not waiting for / not considering the candidate's reponse to those concerns, as opposed to merely finding these things concerning. Regarding #3: it does fall under WP:POLEMIC if I'm reading correctly, as it is definitely Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors.

Regarding #2: the guidelines do allow just removing a comment from one's own talk page, but allowed is hardly the same as endorsed. I think it's not good to ignore it when a concern is raised with one's decisionmaking, especially not as a sysop. The right reaction to an impolite comment, and the one I want to see from a sysop, is a polite reply addressing the substance of the comment, with a note explaining one's objection to its tone or formulation. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 16:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@PJvanMill: thank you for your thoughtful response; I'll try to respond concisely. Without knowing the content of the discussions themselves, I will say that I don't think the mere titling of a page meets the bar for WP:POLEMIC by itself. It's certainly not civil, but pretty low on the scale of incivility in my experience. I think we're debating the semantics of endorse, which I liken to approve or allow. I surely wouldn't say that the guideline encourages deleting messages, but it's emphatically not against our rules. I still think that removing a message on one's talk with a meaningful summary, as the candidate did, is an appropriate and not altogether uncivil response. They were not required to engage in a prolonged discussion about it at that venue, particularly when it started off on the wrong foot. I think there are plenty of other examples of polite interaction from the candidate's contribution history. My point remains that these are really minor concerns when weighed against a candidate's overall body of contributions; I think that mine is a fair critique of several examples of the agreed upon problems in RfA. AlexEng^(TALK) 17:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@AlexEng I concede that what we're looking at here is a very small portion of the candidate's activity. However, behaviour in special situations is important to consider, because in their adminship they would face all sorts of situations. If this comment removal is representative of what TLC would do in such a situation as a sysop, and moreso if it generalises to the case of an inexperienced editor, who doesn't know the proper venue to dispute the decision and hasn't really learned yet to express disagreement within the bounds of civility... if it is representative, that would lead to problems. Of course one cannot know based on this single incident if it is so, but I do think there is a valid concern here. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 19:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you would also concede that those are a lot of ifs. At what point do you think one is straining oneself to use this as a solid reason to oppose? We can eliminate the first if by looking at the candidate's other interactions. Is it, in fact, representative of how they react to disputed decisions? I don't think so. It may be a valid concern, but perhaps it is not a great reason to oppose. I restate for the record my above point about perfection. AlexEng^(TALK) 19:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@AlexEng The question is not whether it's representative of how they (will) react to criticism in general, but of how they will react to harshly worded or uncivil criticism. The tone used is key to what I have in mind as "such a situation" here. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 23:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The expectation is that admins will be admins for multiple years. There's only 1 year of contributions for the community to analyze, and so concerns that wouldn't be used to justify opposes in editors with 3+ years of active involvement in the project will become large points of concern. I think that's why so many of the opposes, including my own, are very positive that TLC will pass an RfA in a year's time. It's not that we think TLC is overall bad at dealing with criticism, is that there's too small a sample size for some to comfortably trust they aren't. Having a badly-titled archive page you deleted a year ago won't make many editors concerned. One that's been removed just a few months ago (and 4 days after starting a request in Optional RfA candidate poll) might. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, A. C. Santacruz. You are right that there is an expectation of multi-year service. We can also reasonably expect admins to learn on the job and to grow into the position. Outside fears of specific abuse, why is this an important factor for you? Let's recall that Eostrix had two years of good behavior, only to be revealed as the sockpuppet of a virulent troll. At what point can we concede that specific time limits can be arbitrary and capricious, rather than helpful criteria? Fourteen thousand edits is a good sample size by any reasonable metric. Is the worst that we can find, in our intense scrutiny, the few above minor concerns? AlexEng^(TALK) 20:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the Eostrix situation is a bit of an edge case, AlexEng. I don't see the concerns as minor. If there was some kind of permissions that would allow TLC to do all an admin can do within the DYK space I'd gladly and strongly support them. However, me and others don't completely trust TLC with access to all the admin tools right now. I think you're simplifying both the concerns and the rationales of oppose voters. It's not that there is a specific time limit that TLC hasn't reached, it's that giving an editor with not much experience access to all the admin tools when some of their behaviour is not exactly stellar feels like a risk some are not willing to take. Partially this might also be due to TLC editing overwhelmingly either in articles they've created (and associated talk pages) and DYKN (and associated talk pages), so it's hard to know if they'd also remove criticism wholesale if someone disagrees with a block or page deletion, for example. Is this an overreaction? Maybe. Is it holding RfA candidates to too high a standard? Perhaps. But RfA is a process that relies on being trusted by the community, and if a significant minority of people feel they need to see TLC edit a bit longer to trust them with the tools I don't think it's being arbitrary. As I said above, I am strongly in support of them renominating in a few months if they don't pass and hope TLC maintains the contagious and extraordinary diligence and enthusiasm they have for this project whatever the result of this RfA. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@A._C._Santacruz – "If there was some kind of permissions that would allow TLC to do all an admin can do within the DYK space [...]"—perhaps, worth revisiting this, this, and definitely this discussion on that proposal. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

With regards to "Ultimately, they did request deletion themselves, well before this RfA. That seems important.": it's worth noting that the candidate only requested deletion once it was (presciently) pointed out at ORCP that the archives would raise eyebrows at RfA. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Good find, Extraordinary Writ. I was not aware of that before you pointed it out. Does it help that the candidate took appropriate action after it was noted? AlexEng^(TALK) 20:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your second point, I'm aware that the candidate is well within their rights to remove talk page messages, but my concerns lie with the level of accountability (which is policy) involved by doing so. As I said in my oppose, it wasn't a nice comment, but by removing it the candidate was essentially dismissing valid concerns because of the manner in which they were aired. Some sysop actions will be controversial, and interactions will get heated, but their response to that scenario doesn't give me confidence in their ability deal with criticism.

The message removal isn't changing people's minds – by my count there are ~2 opposes which only reference the removal, and most of the votes related to it are also to do with the archive, which was more problematic. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 11:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Not sure how Question 18 makes sense. Are we really trying to find ways to prove that a 16 year old cannot handle Admin tools just because they'll be graduating high school, go to university, etc.? How many admins edit Wikipedia as their primary job? Most (if not all) admins have jobs to do (or are studying, yes!), have a family, (may) have relationships, and take out some me-time too, we don't ask them questions like So you're an Engineer, you'll be just too busy to be given Admin tools. How do you expect this to affect your ability to serve as an admin, both in time and areas of focus? ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 16:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to find ways to prove a 16 y.o. cannot handle admin tools, CX Zoom. My personal experience is that a 16 year old is about to go through completely unpredictable and impactful changes in their environment and responsibilities and just wanted to see what their expectations were regarding that, as I didn't want to support an RfA that didn't show much foresight or planning regarding their life choices. Their response indicated a very high level of personal maturity and commitment to WP and made me more likely to support them, even if I didn't end up doing so in the end. The guide says to ask questions that affect how you'll vote for the candidate. The question reflected one of my concerns and was very eloquently answered. Responding to the question was entirely optional, but I'm glad they did. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz: a 16 year old is about to go through completely unpredictable and impactful changes in their environment and responsibilities and just wanted to see what their expectations were regarding that ... I'm curious what that is based on? Graduating high school, moving out of the house, and going to college? If so, this 16-year-old is already a sophomore at university, so I think those unpredictable and impactful changes have already happened in their life, and it's not a matter of expectations but we can actually see results. More generally, I hear what you're saying about sample size, but consider this: they got advice at ORCP in October. How's their editing been since then? Did they take the advice on board? Did they repeat the same mistakes? If not, I don't see why four months of editing "post-advice" isn't enough of a sample size. Consider also that if an RFA candidate doesn't pass, they almost certainly won't try again--very few do. So you're not choosing between making a choice based on this sample size, and making a choice based on a larger sample size; you're choosing between making a choice on this sample size and probably not having this person ever be an admin. This is what people are talking about when they say that perfection is too high a standard at RFA. Levivich 22:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they mentioned that in the reply. The ORCP advice mostly consisted of waiting a few months and continuing to do good work. I believe they should wait more and continue doing good work. I strongly disagree with how you're characterizing the choice between now or later as now or never, Levivich. Why should I support candidates I don't feel I can wholeheartedly trust with all the admin tools now, just because I feel I'm likely to trust them at later point, out of fear they won't accept a nomination in the future?

TLC has such a high level of activity and enthusiasm for DYKs that I'd be seriously surprised they drop it off completely because of a few opposes saying they should wait a few months but still believe TLC is a net positive to the community. Furthermore, saying 1 year is not enough experience for one to trust another as an admin is "perfection", or implying that connection, seems an unnecessary and unwarranted comparison. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Why should I support candidates I don't feel I can wholeheartedly trust with all the admin tools now, just because I feel I'm likely to trust them at later point, out of fear they won't accept a nomination in the future? Because you're likely to trust them at a later point, and because if you don't support them now, that later point is very, very unlikely to come.

You can see for yourself at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies/All that editors who don't make it on their first RFA almost never run a second RFA. To wit: Two editors who failed in 2016 ran a second RFA; neither passed. Since 2017, no one who has failed has run a second RFA. So you can hope that if a candidate fails, they'll come back next year, but that hope has little basis in history, and no basis at all in recent history.

Secondly, TLC has been editing every month since July 2020. That's 18 months of editing, over which they've made 14,000 edits. How can that possibly be too small of a sample size for anyone? How can we seriously tell a person that we want more than 18 months and 14,000 edits before we'll even consider that they can be trusted not to block people or delete pages outside policy?

Thirdly, what are we going to learn in another 12 months that we aren't go to learn from the past 18 months? I can see no reason to think that there is going to be anything new in the next 14,000 edits TLC makes that we haven't seen in their last 14,000 edits.

Fourthly, how many mistakes has TLC made in the past 18 months and 14,000 edits, that makes you not feel you can wholeheartedly trust them with all the admin tools now? Three? Five? Ten? Twenty? Is that a lot?

So, yeah, when someone says a dozen or fewer mistakes in 18 months and 14k edits is too many mistakes, and that's not enough volunteer time for us to make a proper evaluation, and come back in a year (though pretty much nobody ever does).... I'm going to say that's demanding perfection, or pretty close too it. Levivich 23:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

You have a great point. I hate my 2010 RFA, under the username Joe Chill before I requested a username change, due to the overly harsh criticisms and an editor going so far as to say it was probably a juvenile self-nomination. I was actually nominated by an experienced editor. My autistic bluntness being confused for incivility didn't help either. I managed to improve on my bluntness, create and expand over 100 articles combined, help save articles from deletion, worked at AFC, worked on new page patrol frequently, built many preps for DYK mostly by myself especially right after Yoninah died, etc... and I never tried for RFA again. I'm not trying to turn this nomination into something about myself because it certainly isn't, but I'm bringing it up because I was 17 at the time. I am now 28 years old going on 29. A few editors expressed interest in me running for admin again, but no. SL93 (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I feel I have answered the question on why I asked my question. I have tried to give some clarity and nuance to why me and others have voted oppose, but it seems like the justification is not satisfactory, which is fine with me. If you wish to continue the conversation feel free to, but as I feel I've said all I needed to say if you wish for me to respond to anything I'd invite you to ask in my talk page rather than here. Hope this doesn't sound passive-aggressive and I do appreciate your insight and good-faith explanation above, Levivich. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 07:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the research, Levivich, I suspected something like this to be the case. Since 2017, no one who has failed has run a second RFA. Just shows you how patently absurd many RfA cliches are. Your whole comment is a really powerful reality check. — Bilorv (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

---

It seems there are two camps raising issues about age: 1) Concern about maturity and its impact on Wikipedia, and 2) concern for safety of a minor. Are there any admins that could speak to the second concern? It seems reasonable that admins would be more likely to be victims of harassment, doxing, being exposed to obscene material, etc. Is that the case in actuality? Does it depend on which activities the admin participates in (like DYK vs AIV)? I don't want to see another positive contributor resign from Wikipedia entirely shortly after becoming an admin. Thanks, Politanvm ^talk 18:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it really does depends on what kind of thing you end up doing as an admin. I saw very little of that when I was adminning, since I mostly did low-profile cleanup and maintenance type stuff, but if you decide to stick your head into something more heated like AE, then it may be a bit more dangerous. We have had cases where admins were harassed to the point of leaving the project shortly after passing their RfA (won't mention any names) but it's thankfully very rare. ansh.666 20:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.