Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/theleekycauldron

temporarily absent
I'm sorry, I'm being unexpectedly whisked off to the races for a couple of hours—i should be back online by 4am UTC. thanks to everyone who has participated so far! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Q4 response by Maile66
In Q4, left a comment in response to the editor who asked the question, but did so on the area of the page where the candidate would normally place their own answer to the question. It is thus hard to avoid the impression that Maile66 is answering the question on behalf of the candidate. Is this okay? To avoid that impression, I would be inclined to shift Maile66's comment down to the "General comments" area or some other area. Mz7 (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I would support such a move. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I would disagree. Allowing nominators to help candidates answer questions seems to be one way to address some of the issues with the RFA process. BilledMammal (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Then we should get consensus for it. For now it's in a section that says "Questions for the candidate", in the optional section even, and the nominator is not the candidate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mz7, I think the comment should be moved down to the comments section. The role of a nominator is to make a nomination statement and wish the nominee well. After that, it's up to the nominee to answer all of the questions on their own. Nominators shouldn't be answering questions for the nominee. I'm sure that theleekycauldron is more than capable of answering the question on their own.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 02:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * What I was answering above, was not for the nominee. But if you think my comment should be elsewhere, I won't object. I was just trying to clarify some background to that.   It was distinguishing between what the nominee had been referring to, versus my 10-year-old RFC that was the basis. The nominee had just made a passing reference to "Gibraltar situation". But other than having seen it mentioned on a talk thread, they had not been with Wikipedia ten years ago and only knew it as some passing comments on another thread.  I provided links and gave my background on the issue, for clarification to the question.  The nominee then gave their answer to the rest of the question. — Maile  (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Just noting that this was why I found it appropriate; there is no benefit to the candidate answering the question over a nominator answering the question. BilledMammal (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 17:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 18:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a benefit to the candidate answering all of the questions without outside assistance. This allows us to accurately judge the candidate's responses. If the candidate is unable to explain what "the Gibraltar situation" is on their own, then how could they be ready to be an admin? We're here to judge whether or not theleekycauldron is fit for adminship, not whether Maile66 is fit for adminship, or whether Maile66 made a good nomination. If the nominators answered all of the questions on behalf of the candidate, we wouldn't learn very much about the candidate.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 07:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to believe any candidate answers all of the questions without any assistance. It is like an open book exam after all. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In an open book exam, you are typically allowed to consult books and other material, but not to run your answer past your friends. —Kusma (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Scottywong That's how it would work in an ideal world. Unfortunately, the reality is that most nominators edit and approve their nominees answers before they are posted (and from past conversations, this seems to be an accepted practice here). The only difference is that the nominee usually posts it from their own account. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * This is not correct @Ahecht. For instance, of the 17 questions asked of him I have seen 0 of the answers Modussiccandi has given before they were posted publicly. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've seen this discussed frequently -- the most recent that turned up was here. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK


 * The comment should be allowed to stand. Maile makes it clear that they are butting in because they have some special knowledge of the matter.  And, as a nominator, they have special standing in this process.  Third parties have no such standing and so should not interfere.  I'm not sure it's a good look for a nominator to act as a minder but it might be seen as reasonable in the circumstances.  But if people start moving postings around, it would reduce transparency by hiding what happened. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * With the understanding that this case represents more the exception than the norm and that it therefore does not set any new precedent for nominators answering questions on behalf of their candidates in the future, I'm okay with letting this one instance slide. In the future, I would encourage nominators to leave clarifying comments in the "General comments" area. The "Questions for the candidate" area is an area for questions for the candidate—the intent of many RfA questions is to gain insight into the candidate's knowledge and understanding of Wikipedia, so it would often be counterproductive if the nominator shares their knowledge and understanding instead. Mz7 (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think someone should move it just so no one thinks Maile was trying to answer the question for TLC. I don't want to because I'm the other nom. valereee (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Val, I just moved it to its appropriate place. — Maile  (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As a followup question was asked by the OP (and then answered by TLC) moving Maile's answer only creates confusion. Please leave it where it is. —Kusma (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That wasn't a followup question. The two questions were asked at the same time. valereee (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ah, I see. But we have the candidate tacitly accepting Maile's answer, apparently treating it as a question for a clarification of facts. Another reason to let Maile's answer stand is that this is a discussion, not an exam. —Kusma (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It will not be productive for editors evaluating the candidate or the candidate themselves if the question area becomes a discussion. I am 100% supportive of candidates getting help from noms about answers - as some, but not all, of the candidates I nominate do - but ultimately having a place we can hear what the candidate thinks without having to filter it through others is valuable for everyone. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be valuable. Unfortunately I've heard that many candidates have extensive offwiki discussion with their nominators before answering questions, so I'm not sure pretending the "answers to questions" are the candidate's unfiltered thoughts is correct. —Kusma (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would hope you've heard that - I mentioned that happening in what you're replying to. There's a key difference between these two situations (an RfA candidate conferring with their noms and the nom just answering): by responding themselves the candidate assumes responsibility for what is written. So even if they got coaching, which to be clear is not the case for all candidates or even most candidates that I'm involved in (which includes a handful of others where I am not formally a nom), what ends up written is the candidate's view. No need to try and sort it out in a long threaded discussion like this one. It's just there, cleanly formatted, for everyone to read and consider. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that, sorry, I just wanted to stress the point that I'm generally not happy with the way the "questions" system is working. Or not working. —Kusma (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * But as Maile has now removed the comment and explained it was a bit of an accident in the first place, I feel a bit silly having replied as much as I have. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's not dance around this too much. Maile was trying to answer the question for TLC, for any meaningful interpretation of those words.  It was an answer, to the question, in the place TLC was supposed to provide an answer, in a way that TLC couldn't really add anything to it, in a section called "Questions for the candidate".  Maile's answering the question was poor form, and likely incrementally harmed, rather than helped, the candidate's repuation.  I would have assumed it was a momentary lapse of reason on Maile's part, except they still seem to think it was OK.  Oh well.  At this point it's unclear what the fairest solution is.  It seems silly to delete the answer, or move it to the bottom of the page, so that TLC has to either retype the same identical answer, or look like they're ignoring a question.  Unless someone objects, I'm going to collapse Maile's comment, but directly underneath where it is now, and leave the "A.   ..." line blank so that TLC can say something in the answer line.  Even if it is "what Maile said below is correct". --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, Maile moved it a few minutes after I made this comment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I erred in where I originally put that. I wasn't trying to answer for the candidate, but provide the background on that issue, as I was the editor who opened an RFC to deal with it. I was trying to provide some links and first-hand info. I've tried to correct that by moving my comments to where they should have been in the first place.  Sorry about that. — Maile  (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Bilorv

 * "TOOSOON" (i.e. WP:NOTNOW) is inapplicable and strikes me as very patronising to mention. At time of recording, the RfA has over 50 supports and 2 esteemed nominators, so there is more than "no chance of succeeding". — Bilorv ( talk ) 14:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Bilorv, for noting that TOOSOON is relevant only to articles; I have adjusted my comment accordingly. (And no, with just over a year of in-depth editing, I do not think it is particularly inapplicable.) Cheers.  SN54129  14:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNOW is a different page to WP:NOTQUITEYET, and offensive to cite in this case. You seem to have conflated the two, but as your comment now says WP:NOTQUITEYET, I see no outstanding issue. — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)-->

Question answered
Someone (preferably ) should note that Question 7 is answered as a part of Question 20, to avoid it being seen as if TLC skipped the question. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk&#124;contribs) 06:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Closure and removal of comments
Theleekycauldron has indicated they are withdrawing, but the RfA hasn't been formally closed yet. Therefore I don't think anyone except a crat should be reverting comments that are still being made. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyone who commented after the withdrawal statement should be free to remove their own comment. Some of us were typing comments when the withdrawal was posted and didn’t see it until afterwards. I didn’t want to be rude by commenting after the withdrawal. Sometimes the rules are bent to promote civility. Jehochman Talk 13:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that you are free to remove your own comment. I was thinking more of the clerking that removed a neutral !vote. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We should not need crats for something as trivial as closing a withdrawn RfA. Otherwise we'd need to have a lot more crats. —Kusma (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree.  Mini  apolis  14:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, cuz we have so many RFAs, we'd just be overwhelmed... Levivich 14:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , I'd say more would be better for 'crat chats. We also have issues with how representative they are of our current administrators. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I remember the opposes of a recent RFB based on "we don't need more crats." Some of the same folks who opposed this RFA actually. Same folks who oppose RFA reform. That's why we don't have more new crats or admins. The reason we have this calcification in our ranks of advance permission holders is because many folks who've had perms forever are actively trying to make sure they hold on to them forever while making it as difficult as possible for new people to get them. They've closed the door behind them and are holding it shut. Soon, one of them will be along to tell me to shut up. Levivich 15:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So tempting to prove you right. valereee (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Rules state In the case of ... a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. I find zero issue with folks closing the discussion and then "enforcing" that close. Primefac (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Badgering of opposers
This reflects more on theleekycauldron's supporters than on her, but I've participated in a lot of RfA discussions and have never seen as much badgering of opposers (who provided diffs, as expected) as I saw in this one. Something to think about for the next one – badgering an opposer can boomerang. Although I opposed this time, a candidate's behavior after the shit hits the fan speaks volumes; I'll remember TLC's grace under pressure in her next RfA.  Mini  apolis  14:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As one who badgered one of the opposes, I've never before in an RFA seen someone tell such a demonstrably untrue version of history, and everyone just go along with it. You want to talk about boomerangs, I think something should be done about people being less than fully accurate in their vote rationales. Levivich 15:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to add that not all responses to opposers are necessarily badgering. Providing context to some diffs can be a useful contribution to the discussion, for example. It is a fine line, though, and I know I have occasionally crossed it. —Kusma (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I also want to point out that this RfA was an exceptionally unusual one. Very few RfAs take 150 votes to drop into and to the bottom of the discretionary zone. Very few RfAs get 50 opposes. The more opposes, the more interaction there will be with opposers. valereee (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)