Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Elli

Inappropriate questions
@Lightburst, both of your questions (Q8 and Q9) seem inappropriate to me. How do these help you evaluate the candidate's qualifications to be an admin? RoySmith (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I was in process of erasing the first question after considering the power of WP:REVDEL. But I think the second is important because the candidate thought it was important to add to their user page. Lightburst (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Both of these questions are prying into the candidate's personal life, and thus inappropriate. I've deleted one of them, and I see the other was deleted by another admin.  Please don't restore them.  RoySmith (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not personal when someone announces it. FYI: I deleted Q8 myself after looking at it. But my second ? seemed fair because the candidate announced it with a box - like a sign in someone's front yard. By the way I like this candidate and will be a support - it was a curiosity about the motivation behind it. I was surprised to see you erase it since my experience with you is that you discuss and learn before taking harsh action. I have no hard feelings about it because I always know that you have the best interests of all in mind. Lightburst (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a major effort going on to make RfA a less hostile place, and part of that is making sure that the questions that get asked are actually relevant to the evaluating the candidate's qualifications to be an admin. I can't see any way your question contributes to that.  If you are curious about their motivation, ask them on their talk page.  You are correct that I'm usually more circumspect in my actions.  The fact that I wasn't here should be an indication of how inappropriate I felt your question was. RoySmith (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes we can disagree about inappropriate but your conclusion will carry the day. My Aunt used to have a bumper sticker on her car that said "God is in control". She was very happy to tell anyone who would listen why she put the sticker there. I was genuinely interested in the candidate, so I thought to offer my thoughts on the strength of the candidate's contributions and ask questions out of curiosity. I always go back to a candidate's first edits. So, I will enforce a discussion ban against myself in regard to this RFA. I respect you and so that is the end of it. Lightburst (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The content in question was actually surpressed. I didn't realize this until I was an admin but the difference is indicated through how the edit summary appears. A single striked line is revdel, while two striked lines indicates suppressed content. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep. And why anyone, even for a moment, thought that was an even remotely appropriate question is beyond me. I note Lightburst said I swooped in to moderate, which I certainly did, because that is what the community has been asking for, so I'm not sure what the point of that remark was either. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is Q19 appropriate? It's already been decided that Q9 wasn't appropriate for an RfA (which I completely agree with), it seems to me that Q19 is just a rephrasing of the same question (and not only that, it's two questions disguised as one: were you offended by the question and do you have anything to say about your userboxes). Adam Black  talk &bull;  contribs 17:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Carrite I'll ask you the same question I asked Lightburst: in what way will the answer to Q19 help you evaluate the candidate's fitness to be an admin? RoySmith (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * just a note to say it was not "decided". It was removed by Roysmith but the candidate answered it anyway because it was not "inappropriate". Ask yourself why is asking about something that someone displays on a Wikipedia user page inappropriate and unrelated to RFA, but q6 is ok? "Do you have any hobbies outside of Wikipedia?" Neither question is a hardball, but q6 has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Lightburst (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Decided may have been the wrong word, my apologies. I'll answer your question with a question. I have userboxes on my user page which tell others I'm a gay male Atheist Scot. Would it be appropriate to ask ... can you say why you felt it was important to announce that you are gay/are a man/are an Atheist/are a Scot with a userbox? I don't think it would be, and I think the same logic for why it wouldn't be appropriate applies to the question you asked.
 * I don't think icebreakers like do you have any hobbies add much to the RfA process, but they are quite harmless. Bringing up a personal matter that can be rather divisive is likely to just stoke tension though. And having been vaccinated or not does not have anything to do with one's ability to administer Wikipedia, just as one's sexuality, gender, race, nationality, religion, etc. has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to be a great administrator.
 * To be clear I don't think there was any malice intended on your part, it's just my opinion (and one that's shared by others) that the question was not appropriate in this forum. Adam Black  talk &bull;  contribs 18:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Lightburst, as the Minister for Silly Questions, I'd have to agree Q6 and other "So, tell me about yourself" questions are no more relevant than yours. :D Valereee (talk) 10:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree; the last part of Q19 seems pretty similar to Q9. Besides, the decision to remove Q9 was made by other editors, not the candidate, so I don't see how asking the candidate about their reaction to the question is relevant. That Tired Tarantula   Burrow  01:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Reaction of the candidate could be used as a proxy measure of their ability to participate in controversial discussions. —⁠andrybak (talk) 06:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a psychological stress test, and that's exactly what the current RfA reform drive is trying to get away from. RoySmith (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's fair. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Q23 doesn't seem to be a question so much as an instruction to the candidate to perform a task, which doesn't sit very well with WP:VOLUNTEER. Wouldn't it be more usual to ask the candidate to pick a past example of when they've closed a discussion? Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, struck, noting that they are welcome to "answer" it if they really want to. Primefac (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Support/Oppose/Neutral count stuck at 6/0/0
Despite Isaacl attempting to fix the interrupted numbering of the support votes in Special:Diff/1226932962 (continuing with 7 rather than restarting from 1), the Support/Oppose/Neutral count is still stuck at 6/0/0.

Is there a way to fix this so that the count correctly says 14/0/0? GTrang (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Should be sorted now. Primefac (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Try the instructions at to refresh the results of transcluded templates. isaacl (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sorted out.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes sorted out. All you do is purge. Aaron Liu  (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I purged over and over, didn't work. I just took out the pb templates in Carrite's support, and it then worked for me. Of course, now their support looks worse, if that's possible.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Primefac removed the newlines from some of the pb templates but not all, so maybe it would work if all of them had been removed. (Usually I place the newlines for legibility, but I'm guessing in this case that Module:Rfx is treating it as the end of the numbered list.) isaacl (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The old-school  element could be used to improve the appearance, but I feel like I've spent enough time on it and don't want to create any edit conflict issues... isaacl (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Did you try removing the enter / newline character between the two lines quoted below? I'd do it myself but I don't want to look like I'm edit warring you. I suspect this will fix the tally:
 * – Novem Linguae (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to do whatever you wish as long as you make sure that what you do doesn't screw up the support tally. Frankly, we're wasting too much time on an inappropriately long vote.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I made an edit. I think it's fixed. I think the module that does the tally really doesn't like WP:LISTGAP. It wants an unbroken string of # in front of every single line, with no line breaks. Let me know if it's not fixed. – Novem Linguae (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm letting you know that it's not not fixed. :-p Thanks! --Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not fixed how? The counter currently correctly displays 30/0/0. Or do you mean that the module doesn't work in general cases? Aaron Liu  (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "not not" fixed. Double negative joke, I think – Novem Linguae (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I hate reading w/ my smooth brain Aaron Liu  (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Moving discussion from the project page
I never advocate for moving discussion, but I think it is needed here after my oppose. LilianaUwU has long been following me to harass and accuse me, twice taken me to ANI - the last time with a blatant PA against me. I do not feel comfortable moving discussion myself but it seems like a sideshow with harping from Just Step Sideways... and it is not helpful. FYI, I also sent the entire vote rationale to arbcom before posting it, so striking my thoughts is not appropriate. Lightburst (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Lightburst, I really think you should withdraw your vote altogether. I'm no fan of Wikipediocracy either, but it is unreasonable to oppose someone simply because they are alleged to have participated in that site (a point you arguably can't even make without violating the very policy you claim to be defending). If you're going to insist on making comments such as these you should expect some pushback, and those rebuttals should be just as visible as the message they are responding to. – bradv  01:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Feel free to appeal the strike to ArbCom, but I would guess their scan of your rationale had more to do with outing than it did standard-rate RfA moderation, which would be why they skipped over the PA. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You have literally struck my thoughts. But ok. Thanks for the comment, I feel quite strongly that anyone who wants to be an admin needs to show people that they will be fair. You guys can have it your way on leaving the comments there and I will not be withdrawing. FYI: I usually protest very hard when comments are moved from the project page, ask Ritchie333, but if you like looking at those accusations there it is ok with me. Lightburst (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "anyone who wants to be an admin needs to show people that they will be fair" – This makes no sense, given your vote. You have no evidence, only vague accusations with the threat of doxxing. – bradv  02:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is helpful to continue discussion here. I asked arbcom how I could present my oppose - they deliberated and advised. I also checked previous RFAs to see that opposing based on off-wiki behavior is common. I do appreciate you talking to me like a fellow editor. Lightburst (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * they deliberated and advised - yes, and rather specifically told you not to post the type of content that you eventually posted. Please do not try to use ArbCom as a Get Out of Jail Free card here. Primefac (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I was advised by you after the committee deliberated and I responded by sending you and the committee my rationale 9.5 hours ago. So what is the issue? Lightburst (talk) 06:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The lack of reply from the Committee should have been a clue; in instances like this silence is not tacit approval, especially when it is on a Sunday night. Primefac (talk) 06:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh great, more baseless accusations of harrassment coming from you.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 06:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Liliana you have been about the most hostile editor I have ever encountered. Like you are waiting in the weeds, and I am very disturbed by it. I had sent you a message saying I hoped we could work together and you ignored it. Instead you have been trying to have me blocked, and banned 2 ANIs and other demands to discipline me like on the project page here. So, I try to avoid you now. It is not personal, it is self-preservation. Can we have a truce? Lightburst (talk) 06:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A truce? Sure, I'm willing to drop the stick. But don't take this as me agreeing to an IBAN or anything else.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 06:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Cool, and thank you for the revert earlier. Lightburst (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The oppose itself

 * 1) Oppose I have communicated with arbcom before voting here. My belief has always been that administrators are here to protect content and content creators. I cannot trust this editor to protect content creators because the candidate participates on an off-wiki website where members excoriate and dox Wikipedia editors. The candidate directly commented in threads where Wikipedia editors were doxed and harassed, and they participated in a thread referring to Wikipedia editors as idiots. In the spirit of proposal 9b, I have emailed screenshots to arbcom and I have tried to format this rationale according to their advice by limiting my comments. Lightburst (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we get it already, you believe in "guilt by association" . Good luck with that. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * partially struck as a personal attack. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Reminder to any uninvolved admin that this is a personal attack and under proposal 9b, a block could be placed.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 00:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * IT's not a personal attack to note that LB seems to have, dare I say it, encyclopedic knowledge of who said what when on WPO. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * JSS, I'm talking about Lightburst's comments, not your statement on the situation.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 00:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok, the threading was a little unclear. Carry on. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 01:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Reminder to any random admin that promoting an atmosphere of 'hey, block that person I disagree with' is a really bad idea. &rarr; StaniStani &rarr; StaniStani 00:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's just a disagreement to be against someone placing severe public accusations at RFA under the guise of having sent screenshots at ArbCom. If there is private evidence, then the accusations should remain private.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 00:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't think you should be siding with Lightburst, who's calling WPO a bad website, on this one, because you're explicitly promoting WPO on your user page.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 00:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC) uncalled for, sorry  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 04:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They's not siding with them, they's telling us to chill a bit. Heavy handing is not very good for the atmosphere here. Aaron Liu  (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This comment is inappropriately personalised and combative. BoldGnome (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Advocating for overly aggressive blocking is just as problematic and toxic as letting obvious incivility go. People need to calm down, and stop equating every comment they dislike with a personal attack. I'm increasingly concerned about the degree to which efforts to improve civility at RFA is emboldening some admins and voices who want to block other voices with which they strongly disagree, and emboldening an ever-widening definition of what constitutes a personal attack. Grandpallama (talk) 02:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with Grandpallama. Not every situation means we need to go straight to the block button. I've been warning that Proposal 9b and the like are going to lead to unintended consequences, and it hasn't taken long for experience to prove me right. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That depends on whether they indeed supported threads of doxxing. That said, I find that unlikely, considering WPO's policies . Aaron Liu  (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've struck the part where Lightburst directly alleges that the candidate approves of offwiki harassment as a personal attack. The rest looks to me like either statements of fact or personal feelings about Wikipediocracy, both of which are fair game if ArbCom does indeed not see this as OUTING or otherwise harassment. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Some of the threads there are exceptionally long and discussions (just like here) often sprawl out and there may be several topics under discussion at once. It is ridiculous to even assume anyone has read every single post in some of these threads. One thread that is active over there right now opened almost exactly two years ago and has nearly 1,300 posts in it. The candidate commented in that thread, once, yesterday,in a completely innocuous way, but by LB's logic apparently now they are assumed to have read, and are complicit in, whatever content earlier in the thread that Lightburst is apparentely upset about.
 * The idea of collective blame for the actions of one member of a group has led to a lot of very bad things throughout the course of human history. (also, dude, WP:STREISAND, has the committee not mentioned that to you at least a couple times by now if you've been talking to them about this?) Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 02:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I thoroughly dislike the striking out of another editor's comment, which suggests to other readers that the author retracted or struck it themselves. Just drop a warning, or use the npa template, but altering someone else's posts is frowned upon for a reason. Grandpallama (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Theleekycauldron, I've undone your striking out. You have not approached the authors first as you should. Also, clear-cut personal attacks should be removed and potentially revdelled; crossing out is reserved for other use cases (to mark comments by blocked users or when editing own comment). WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS is a good read. Sorry. — kashmīrī  TALK  08:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @: thanks for the note :) I'm not aware of any obligation to request redactions before performing them (particularly where aspersions/prop 9b are concerned), although I will note that Lightburst has chosen not to further contest theirs and JSS seems to have moved onto other things. I've reinstated the redactions as rpas per guideline. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Theleekycauldron Thanks, looks better, although to be honest my bar for removal is much higher. Comments that are a tad derogatory, a tad sarcastic are nothing out of ordinary for a typical projectspace discussion – as the guideline suggests, only gross personal attacks should be censored. But it's ok now as long as the authors don't protest. — kashmīrī  TALK  10:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * +1. We remove personal attacks to keep the place civil and collegial. Striking them out instead calls attention to them and has the opposite effect. Nardog (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In principle, I'm also a "hardliner" on this issue, but the explanation in Q25 alleviates any concerns I'd otherwise have. Levivich (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the candidate said involvement on the site recently was innocently responding to an editor about pronouns. But the post referenced by the candidate in q25 was surrounded by personal attacks. The PAs were not something the candidate did not see, and they were not among 1,300 posts as JSS has suggested. I was extremely disappointed to see the candidate posting in there and so I cannot support. I think if you join a group that bullies, and watch bullying you can't say, "I am innocent because I never bullied anyone". Lightburst (talk) 05:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why is this all threaded under an oppose !vote and not in the talk section? Could someone maybe collapse this conversation (when it ends) or copy it there? I know I'm not helping. Conyo14 (talk) 07:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I asked for it to be moved to the talk page but the request was rebuffed. You could move it there yourself if you want. Lightburst (talk) 07:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * On one hand, I am somewhat bored of the deranged whackadoodle guy on WPO who doxes people all the time, and I am also somewhat bored of plaint against unjust persecution of innocent Wikipediocrats every time a person onwiki makes a negative comment about the behavior on that site.
 * On the other hand, this is a silly oppose. First of all, generally speaking, people can do what they want on the Internet; it would obviously be insanely out-of-bounds at an RfA to go rifling through every online comment a person's made under any name anywhere -- in my opinion, the fact that many people have WPO accounts under their same on-wiki names (and that the sites are bound at the hip) is the only thing that makes it justifiable to bring it up at all, but it still feels a little unduly intrusive, unless they actually did or said something outrageous and unbecoming. In this case, Elli... did not. Since 2021 she has made only ten posts on the website.
 * (IMPORTANT NOTE: Something in WPO's phpBB install is messed up, so it does not display quote tags on the "search for user's posts" page -- some of the things it claims are a user's posts are actually posts by other people that they're responding to  -- to find out what she actually posted, you need to click through to the thread view)
 * Only two of them are publicly visible, but for those who are not members of the GOODSITE -- none of the rest are remotely controversial; none of them are in dox threads; none of them are anything but totally normal, anodyne posts. jp×g🗯️ 09:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * are WikiProject Opera and Wikipediocracy a sort of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde situation? ... sawyer * he/they *  talk  18:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * oh, it's a play on WPO; that took me too long to get. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * it would be a play on WPO if it weren't an opera. these are very different! Aaron Liu (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Primefac as the de facto primary bureaucrat doing any admin actions on this RFA, I wanted to object to Lightburst removing the Template:rpa from his oppose on talk and main pages. The message was struck/removed as a PA by Theleekycauldron, and was cause for people to comment on it. If it's removed by another editor, especially as an admin action, it should be noted somewhere.
 * I also find Lightburst's edit summary disingenuous and lacking. words matter Leeky, calling like people's comments PAs - folks use those labels to later to point to character flaws, It also substantially distracts from my vote, so please don't He did not remove the comment, yet when the comment is (in my opinion, correctly) labelled as a personal attack, it's suddenly 'substantially distracting' from the vote and needs removal. If a comment was egregious enough to warrant removal, it cannot be simultaneously distracting to note so. Not noting anything makes every other reply to Lightburst look artifically egregious.
 * Soni (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems like we have gotten into a Lightburst-related dispute in nearly every other RFA since April 2023. I'm not sure what to think of that. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is what happens when folks have to declare their vote and rationale at the polls. I wish there was a way a person could vote in an election and then walk away without coming back to see it has been messed with. How about just allow me to vote without planting a giant malfeasance flag in the middle of my vote. The pa opinion was based on Theleekycauldron's subjective view. I should not have to circle back to see if folks have messed with my vote. FYI: I could RPA your inflammatory language Soni, "disingenuous and lacking" "egregious" - but that too would be subjective. I am voting as a lone oppose here, so please lets not have the majority voters constantly refactoring my vote or tagging it with templates. Now I am going to pack for a California trip - please leave my vote alone. If anyone needs images for articles from the Los Angeles area let me know! I am going to be offline for a while starting this afternoon so please lets move on, clearly my oppose rationale is my opinion and it is not shared by any other editors. Lightburst (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Have a great trip LB. We'll miss you. Wikipedia is not the same without you. — hako9 (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Enjoy your trip. Cremastra (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @QuicoleJR Yes. If Lightburst wants to make maverick opposes, whatever, provided they're civil about it. But people jumping on and striking things and arguing about whether things should be struck, and moving things to the talk page, and arguing about whether things should have been moved to the talk page, and hatting things off, and arguing about whether something else should be hatted off... it never helps. Yet another editor coming in here and giving their opinion on Lightburst's oppose doesn't help, and now we've got a meta bandwagon where people are coming in to discuss whether or not admins' responses to the oppose were right. If you're thirsty for drama, go to AN/I. But a dozen editors bickering on this talk page about everything under the sun is a waste of time and energy, and gets people riled up when the situation could have been quietly dealt with by one admin. Frankly, since the issue seems to have been dealt with, and everyone's actions suitably dissected by all and sundry, this thread should be closed by an admin or 'crat, and everyone should wash their hands and move on.Cremastra (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I generally think only crats should strike things from RfAs, and even then only for egregious breaches of policy. Ultimately, people's opinion is people's opinion, and if it's as out of whack as everyone says it is, there shouldn't be much problem. You can query factual matters and debunk obvious accusations, but otherwise just move on. One oppose or zero opposes doesn't really make any difference in the grand scheme of things. The only time an admin should need to get involved is for blatant unambiguous bright-line policy violations. Honestly, all this chatter here has given this issue far more air-time than it deserves... I don't agree with Lightburst, but if that's how they feel that's how they feel. And I wish them a pleasant vacation. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * +1. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My thought is that while 'crats have some domain over RfA, personal attacks are a straightforward admin problem the way any other user-conduct issue is. At first I went with a strikethrough, because I thought that'd help lower temperature; then I went with rpa when it was requested to not use a strike. Next time, I'll come up with something that doesn't directly edit the RfA. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems like the problem was many people thought that striking implied Lightburst self-redacted it. Aaron Liu  (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Can we please put this in some sort of proportion? This is one of now two opposes, among 149 votes cast.  That's about one and a third percent.  It's not worth responding to.  It's certainly not worth arguing about, let alone arguing about the argument over it.  Extreme-minority positions like these, if they are to be derided, are best derided by ignoring them entirely as beneath notice.  Is your time worth so little? —Cryptic 23:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

's !vote (just below #94 in the support section)
Just bringing this up for discussion for future reference or something like that: Another editor has altered it and currently it doesn't count because Scorpions posted an 'oppose' in the support section. Discuss (10 marks 😁). But seriously I would want to hear your opinions. Thanks Volten <span style="color:lime	">001  <b style="color:red">☎</b> 06:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is the second joke oppose being made in this RFA alone. There is no indication that this was an intentional oppose placed in the wrong location. I have re-added it as a counting !vote. Primefac (talk) 06:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I indented it, but I don't object to your restoration.-Gadfium (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Joke opposes aren't funny and never have been. Perhaps making a firm practice of not counting them might discourage them a bit. <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 17:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure adding more rules to RfA is a good idea. Probably best to continue the practice of just finger wagging at people who do so as a joke. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a clear support, and I don't see how it would be fit to remove that. Aaron Liu  (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think people really do joke opposes in RFAs where voting does matter. (I'm much more likely to joke oppose a RFA with 4 otpposers than one with 30 opposers) counting or not counting them should no matter. Tbh, it's a harmless bit of fun when it's obvious. I don't see it contributing negatively compared to much more pressing problems. <b style="color:#795cb2;">Sohom</b> ( talk ) 19:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sohom Datta, it's not the most pressing problem, but it is a problem. RfA is a serious, tense, often-toxic, high-stress environment, particularly around anything labeled an oppose. Those qualities make it a very bad place for humor. A candidate who is nervously checking for opposition might be startled to see an oppose before reading it and realizing it's a joke, adding to the stress of the experience. A non-controversial RfA can also become a controversial one, at which point joke opposes that felt inconsequential when they were cast can turn into a more serious moderation mess. Clear disclosure through humor tags should be the bare minimum expectation for any humor at RfA, but really you're better off just avoiding it. <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)"> Sdkb  talk 20:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Иованъ's oppose vote
I felt it was more appropriate to discuss this here rather than on the main RfA page. I have to agree with Reaper Eternal that asking Иованъ to justify their oppose vote does seem like badgering. While it is less than ideal not providing a reason your your support, oppose or neutral vote, supporters 11, 13, 24, 25, 26, 29, 58, 63, 73, 74, 76, 100, 108, 115, 124, 125, 131, 143, 146 and 148 (I might have missed some) have not provided any sort of explanation for their votes with no one pushing them to elaborate. I'm not going to comment on the merits of Lightburst's oppose (there's been plenty of that already), but jumping on the dissenters in an RfA just doesn't sit right. I'm not saying this was anyone's intention and I don't think anyone is acting in bad faith but what's happening here could come across slightly as trying for unanimity through badgering dissenters into submission. It doesn't seem in keeping with the stated intention of making this process less unpleasant. I supported, and continue to support, Elli and would be interested to hear Иованъ's reasoning but given the overwhelming support I don't think it's likely to change anything anyway. Adam Black talk &bull;  contribs 05:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * agreed; the badgering of oppose votes was one of the larger problems identified at RFA2024. while i would also like to know Иованъ's rationale, they didn't give one for any of the three previous RfAs they've participated in, which makes me think "who cares?" ... sawyer  * he/they *  talk  05:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Admin hat off, I'm gonna gently suggest we all let this one go. I imagine the candidate will not be greatly saddened to lose the support of a sub-1000-edits user who didn't bother to write a rationale. If someone wants to start a broad-strokes discussion on how we feel about rationale-less opposes, they're more than welcome to, but whenever we badger people for things like this, it's like we're the community equivalent of an autoimmune disease, mistaking our own for an enemy. I'd just like to hopefully head off the idea of there being 1,000 more words about what'll ultimately be fairly inconsequential in isolation on both a user-conduct level and an RfA level. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As I've written before, denying oxygen to discussion threads can be the best way to tamp them down. When there's nothing to respond to, as in this case, it should be easy to just let the comment drift away into the ether. isaacl (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You skipped me :( I'm supporter number 70 and I didn't put any rationale either Leijurv (talk) 08:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I also provided no rationale at support #36. It's pretty well established that standards differ for supports and opposes at RfA. Feels like we talk about it at least twice a year. Folly Mox (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My opinion: The reason supporters shouldn't be required to substantiate their vote is because a support vote shows agreement with (often multiple) well-crafted and eloquent statements from editors in good standing. There is usually nothing more left to say. An oppose, OTOH, implies there are concerns with the candidate that the noms and the community missed, and opposers, therefore, should tell us what they think disqualifies the candidate from being an admin. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ( talk to me!/my edits ) 18:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Badgering
Voters know it's not actually a requirement to badger oppose voters, right? For example, the rationale for votes #40, #45, #71, and many others are weak or even non-existant, but the only support vote that got replies is a joke vote (that has since been adjusted). Every single oppose vote but one, on the other hand, has a reply. People know badgering is a long-standing problem at RfA, there have been jokes about it, but we can't seem to help piling on. I'm as guilty as everyone else, to be clear – I'm not trying to take the moral high ground on this one – but the state of RfAs is ridiculous, everybody knows it, is trying to prevent it – and yet it seems to keep happening. Why? Cremastra (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The high support ratio may give you an idea. If there were more opposes, there's a lot less badgering, as we've seen in DR's RfA where only around 3 were badgered among 43. Everyone just has something to say against most oppose votes, and off-wiki seems like a controversial point. Also, I don't think Joe's comment was necessarily badgered upon. I see general remarks about questionable policy. Aaron Liu  (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Since you're asking a general question, I think Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship would be a better discussion forum than the talk page for a specific RfA. (And maybe in that venue you can provide your own answer as to why you responded as you did in a past RfA?) isaacl (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In the case of Tails Wx's RfA, I responded the way I did because I strongly supported the candidate, and was annoyed at oppose votes I thought were unjustified (basically, all of them). Cremastra (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Other online activity
If you apply for a job employers are likely to consider your social media and online activity; according to CNBC, Harvard Business Review and CBS News, 70% of employers will check your social media and online activities. (they seem to be quoting a 2018 Careerbuilder survey) In an RfA, we are discouraged from mentioning or considering these other online activities because of privacy concerns. A thread atop this page even discourages discussing a WP:UBX which is displayed on Wikipedia. Many of us are great at researching but in RfA research is supposed to be limited; is that realistic? Is discussion of all other online activity off-limits? Like when the candidate made a comment about this RfA on another website during this RfA (Q25)? If someone casts an oppose vote based on an these other online activities they are not allowed to provide evidence, so their vote is criticized or invalidated? If someone just adds a naked oppose, the vote is criticized or invalidated? This seems like a problem. Bruxton (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Good starting point, although I think it is better to be at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship since it is a perennial topic. I will be brief, where do we draw the line then if we are to use offwiki activities to oppose a nomination? How far it would go before someone goes, 'this is an invasion of privacy!' Different people have different boundaries. – robertsky (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To be fair, a real-life job application is a little different from what an RfA is meant to be, no?  ULPS ( talk •  contribs ) 02:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * indeed; RfA is not a job application nor should it be treated like one, at all. ... sawyer  * he/they *  talk  03:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A job is usually temporary, but once elected at RfA, you are an administrator on the English Wikipedia forever. And this is a bit of a job interview isn't it? Asking questions, checking the résumé and then deciding if we can trust someone with administrator rights. Bruxton (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * sure the trappings & process are similar, but in general i resent the idea that we should treat wikipedia like a workplace in terms of our culture. RfA does not and should not require a background check or a comb-through of all the candidate's off-wiki activities. i understand others have different philosophies, but i'm pretty firmly against the attitude displayed in the opposes (and many of the responses to the opposes, for that matter) to this request. ... sawyer  * he/they *  talk  04:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I can appreciate that sawyer. And I agree with you in wondering where the line should be. Maybe when you are discussing Wikipedia business it is something voters should be able to consider? And you are right this is probably a discussion for another day; I just saw the confusing way editors had to rationalize their votes in this RfA, and the pushback. Bruxton (talk) 04:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree that this general question is better discussed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, as it has a broader scope than just one RfA. isaacl (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Voter suffrage
Since April this year, !Votes in RFAs have been restricted to only editors with Extended Confirmed permission - See Requests_for_adminship and Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Phase_I.

So the votes by User:Lulfas and User:Cerulean Depths should be discarded, I believe. Soni (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I thank User:Kusma and others for Proposal 14. An impartial talk statement like Soni's above is appropriate. BusterD (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it would be appropriate to give the editors a talk page notice like the one you placed here, to inform them. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The neutral votes?
Maybe I'm daft, and maybe someone can explain this to me: What's going on with the statements of the 3 current neutral votes? Their wording seems ... like an acknowledgement of this RFA and nothing more. Does this serve a purpose? Steel1943 (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It would probably be considered improper to suggest that such votes were generally an exercise in attention seeking, so I won't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems like an attempt at humor. They are not hurting anything and they don't affect the percentage, so I'd just leave them alone. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I was more along the lines of thinking that ... there needed to be a minimum amount of votes in the new RFA process or something. But eh, it's just optional fun, I guess. Steel1943  (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You'd have to ask the commenters... But since in this situation the bureaucrats will ignore these three statements, you may as well do the same. isaacl (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is now 2 neutral votes. I acknowledged the RFA and said that I would read it again.  Then I read it again.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)