Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/theleekycauldron 2

Question
Is this a different person than the one who just hangs out at places like ARC and makes a profession out of airing their opinions? G M G talk  18:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes. – bradv  18:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * See User:Leaky caldron. There's a note about it on the RfA page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * IIRC Leaky caldron said they don't mind the similarity. IMO we shouldn't allow substantially similar usernames even if the original person doesn't mind (there's still everybody else who can get confused). But that's just my opinion that has no bearing on this RfA (which I supported). BTW I don't think this is a fair characterization of someone with only 17% of edits in projectspace. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong. I appreciate a good produce-related pun.  G M G  talk  19:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know what ARC is and have not, AFAIK, made a profession out of anything here apart from condemning unacceptable Admin. behaviour for 20 years. Care to clarify? Leaky caldron (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Umm...I dunno. Find an ALL CAPS REFERENCE and put a "WP" behind it?  G M G  talk  18:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I resent your intended pejorative aspersion - which is precisely what it is and you know it - that me adding uninvolved statements in Arbcom cases is something to be ridiculed by way of the observation you have made. It is a thinly veiled personal attack - which is wp:pa, with or without CAPS. Leaky caldron (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's back up a little bit. Have some respect for the language. A pejorative means I'm using short-hand jargon that's widely understood as derogatory despite being nearly an idiom.
 * I don't understand why people hang out at ArbCom. I don't know why ArbCom hangs out at Arbcom. I don't know why someone would volunteer for something so obtuse. I don't know why we continence the thing at all when plenty of projects get along without it, and my opinions on the matter have hardly been subdued in their expression.  G M G  talk  19:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * One reason for keeping ArbCom, or something very like it, is that without ArbCom the Foundation would be dealing with the cases that the community can't resolve at ANI. See Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines. I think you will find that most members of the community prefer ArbCom dealing with the hard cases rather than the Foundation. Donald Albury 21:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Although reading the ArbCom pages is much like taking a trip down a sewer in a glass-bottomed boat, I encourage people to read it at least occasionally because (a) it helps to know how it operates should (God forbid) you wind up there and (b) the people who do hang out there think everybody cares and follows what goes on there, the lack of knowledge of which has on occasion led back to (a). Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Curious
Is this the most a single person has been supported in the first 12 hours of an RFA? TLC is without a doubt the most prominent non-admin on the site. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Looks like it. Requests for adminship/Cullen328, the fastest-climbing RfA I can remember, only gathered 88 supports in the first 12 hours, compared to 127 here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A fair shout better than my 39/19/5 at the same point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * the most prominent non-admin on the site Jimbo Wales is not an admin though :) —Kusma (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * … did you know that TLC got the most support in an RfA in Wiki history? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Fails verification. The most support in an RfA in Wiki history was given to Tamzin, who was supported by 340 editors. Although for a more subjective definition of support, I'd say Cullen328's 316 supports to 2 opposes is probably the most supported RfA when you start taking support % into account. casualdejekyll  16:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't hear much of him anymore, so he doesn't count :p. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * LOL! You know that I am reading this, don't you ? Cullen328 (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I was referring to Jimbo Wales. Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

It helps that RfAs are now watchlist notices. - jc37 19:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm glad they are. Definitely improves awareness and engagement across the community. ~Gwennie &#128008; &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 01:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree.
 * I remember times where the page would just sit there - for hours or even days - with the candidate hoping that people might notice. (And some candidates, I think, hoping that certain people wouldn't notice, lol) - jc37 01:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

As of this time, we are almost halfway done with the RFA with 243 supports. However, new supports have been slowing. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * 252 now and if no opposes and neutrals, we will break the record. Just a random Wikipedian (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't jinx it!! Pamzeis (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * They jinxed it. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * For those who care about such pointless (IMO) things, there's still hope - multiple people have suggested discounting the vote in question casualdejekyll 18:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not really care that much. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be discounted. It really doesn't matter in a 300-1 RfA. The issue for most people is that we were basically all enjoying the rare unanimous 300+ RfA. It was a party. Everyone was happy. And then someone pissed in our Wheaties. :) Valereee (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You know, per WP:IAR, nothing's stopping the other 300 of us from saying it's unanimous anyway... that's how truthiness works, right? casualdejekyll  19:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, to answer this seriously: no, I don't think so. If someone opposes, they oppose. We may think the oppose is silly or pointy, but it's still an oppose. Still also a 300+ successful RfA, but yes, there's an oppose, and the reasons claimed aren't completely specious. Valereee (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We have now passed some old record-breaking RfAs (I remember Requests for adminship/Can't sleep, clown will eat me 33⅓, which was started on 1 April, ran concurrently with my own RfA for a few days, and was record-breaking at the time). See User:NoSeptember/RfA voting records, which is unfortunately about ten years out of date, but still includes something like 90% of all RfAs that have ever happened. —Kusma (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Appalling state of affairs
This RfA has been running for nearly 24 hrs, and so far only support !votes. Where are all the "she only has 12 GAs" and "I don't like leeks, they give me heartburn" etc. opposes? I mean really, what has this community become? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Speaking of which, I'm not a huge fan of leeks. I have no problem with onions though. BorgQueen (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Potato leek soup is fall in a bowl for me. I love buying both straight from the farmers that grew them and making it myself. I think I still have a few jars from last year even. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Every year about this time I start Jonesing for soup. I actively look forward to short days because:soup. And potato leek is one of the top contenders, sop it up with some homemade bread...yow, why is it only August? Valereee (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I love potato leek soup. Top it with some bacon and cheese, enjoy with homemade sourdough and lots of butter... Yum. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 20:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Will a leek duck do? - UtherSRG (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Farfetch'd isn’t meta. ✶Mitch  199811  ✶  18:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the cauldron is defective and needs repairing. Panini!  • 🥪 16:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * To be fair, theleekycauldron's name also reminds me of Farfetch'd. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's where Farfetch'd cooks their meals, right? - UtherSRG (talk) 10:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Errors in report?
Congratulations to the candidate on their overwhelming support. When I look at the standard RfA status report which I display on my userpage, I now suddenly see and  and  messages. Can someone with better technical skills than I possess please solve this problem? Thanks in advance. Cullen328 (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Cullen328: try purging the page (click on Update right above the report). I saw that same error on WP:RFA a while ago and purging the page solved it. –FlyingAce✈hello 19:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , I no longer see the problem. Cullen328 (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Briefly had this problem, too. Luckily, a normal old refresh fixed it for me. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Therapyisgood's oppose
Leave them be, this is not some dictatorship where Dear Leader gets all the ivotes. The editor has an oppose and who are you to say it should be struck or it is not valid; all of this nullification talk and badgering is too much. It is silly that some folks feel we have to sanitize RFAs by sidelining and berating dissenting voices. TLC will be an administrator soon enough and her RFA is still iompressive. Lightburst (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose user does pointless RFCs, lacks maturity, changes things through RFCs that don't need to be changed, doesn't advertise their RFCs to relevant WikiProjects, etc. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Therapyisgood can you give us an example of her "pointless RFCs"? BorgQueen (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * one sec. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Here: . when I say pointless I mean changes things through RFCs that don't need to be changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A majority of the community clearly felt that it needed to be changed, since that was the consensus in the end. Your current RfC to overturn it is tending strongly toward no change; if anything is an example of "pointless RFCs", it would be that one, which you've persisted in, almost completely unsupported, even after I pointed out a month ago that you'd provided no argument for your position. You're literally opposing an RfA because someone followed correct procedures to establish a consensus you disagree with, and you were unable to overturn it just by saying "Hey everyone! You were wrong last time!" Which is certainly evidence of someone being immature, but not the person you think. (I'd beat the drum of "diffs or retract" regarding that accusation, but I think the candidate is, well, mature enough to handle a single insult.) -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 16:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have all day to argue with unemployed people online but if you actually took the time to read my oppose I also opposed because "doesn't advertise their RFCs to relevant WikiProjects". Therapyisgood (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, Thereapyisgood, by stopping this RfA being the highest unopposed and the highest unanimous RfA of all time, you're about to be trolled into oblivion. I suggest taking a few days off. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * And "I don't have all day to argue with unemployed people online" reads to me like a personal attack. We quite famously don't do those here. Still - guys, please don't "troll" Therapyisgood. Nothing productive will come of it and you will look like an ass if you badger them. Just don't do it.To engage with the actual oppose, though - @Therapyisgood, could you explain what any of this RfC stuff has to do with suitability for adminship, or how it reflects on her maturity? At the very least, when 296 out of 297 people disagree with you, it seems like you owe an explanation, instead of a snarky disapproval when somebody tries to engage you about your concerns. casualdejekyll  16:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems they were blocked (for this comment) so unfortunately they are not able to explain further. Jagmanst (talk) 02:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * They weren't when I wrote the comment - and, ultimately, I wrote that comment before the badgering started to become an issue; but I shouldn't have commented at all, it was pretty clear what trajectory the discussion was going. casualdejekyll  14:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Please kindly strike your first sentence. (I mean, you should strike all of this, but, unlike personal attacks, looking incredibly petty is not a sanctionable offense.) -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 16:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I also opposed because "doesn't advertise their RFCs to relevant WikiProjects" Which is in absolutely no way required by WP:RfC and wouldn't even be best practice in many scenarios. Looking at the broader context here, this looks incredibly petty and suggestive of tendentiousness. If not for the special and deep necessity to keep this space open to most all criticism, I'd almost call these WP:aspersions. But because we can't have the chilling effect that would involve, we have to treat this almost as if it was the legitimate, goodfaith feedback that it clearly is not.  The only interesting part about your participation here is that it still will not stop this discussion from being closed at 100% support: congratulations on becoming a rounding error.   All that said, you do need to retract the "unemployed" comment in response to Tamzin: that is a wholly inappropriate WP:PA, and even our propensity towards letting some comments slide at RfA in the interest of transparency and vetting will not shield you if you stick by it. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 17:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree I don't have all day to argue with unemployed people online is not only a personal attack but arguably disruptive within an RfA.
 * There's always one in every crowd, I guess. Valereee (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Surely Therapyisgood would never disrupt an RfA and then engage in personal attacks of the "you spend too much time online" variety when called on it. Bonus: Not even his first employment-related insult of the day --  Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 17:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * With this information in light, I'd suggest somebody come around and drop an before this gets out of hand.  casualdejekyll  17:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The thing is, I really think it would be a huge shame to disrupt Leek's otherwise highly positive RfA by taking any serious action here: it would only enable this borderline trolling disruption further. But at the same time, this habit of theirs is thoroughly unacceptable and needs a formal warning at a minimum. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 17:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Although I think that Therapyisgood's !vote is ridiculous, that sarcasm is not helpful Tamzin. I'm disappointed that you would forgo tactfulness to participate in a fruitless discussion that will contribute nothing except making an RFA experience marginally less pleasant, especially after your own was so contentious. You could have formally warned Therapyisgood for using personal attacks without resorting to petty sarcasm, but you chose to stoop to their level by doing so.  The Night Watch     (talk)   17:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you've not visited my userpage at a time when this userbox was visible. If I've added any stress at all to the candidate, she's welcome to press the "fulfill" button there tomorrow, barring 100 opposes materializing in the next 24 hours. (To clarify tone before getting into a meta-sarcasm rercursion: I am indicating in a light-hearted manner that I acknowledge your concerns but do not find them persuasive, but am genuinely sincere about how leek can feel free to block me.) --  Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 18:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Never once did I consider this a blockable offense, but one merely of plain decency. If you should find such a simple commitment of tactfulness and courtesy to not be of great concern, I realize now that should have reconsidered my !vote in last year's Arbitration Committee election. Administrators should hold themselves to a higher standard than I ever hold myself, and if you consider me Malvolio for reminding you of the social example you signed up for when you decided to run for sysop, perhaps I overestimated your willingness to take legitimate attempts at feedback.  The Night Watch     (talk)   20:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think what this thread is missing is my very particular voice and insights. It is definitely not possible that the substantive question to which this page is addressed will be correctly decided unless everyone reads my unique, original, very serious thoughts on this matter.  Indeed, it would be a disservice to humanity for me not to add my comment to this thread.  --JBL (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, nope, when people start to satirize how pointless the thread is, that's when you move it to the talk page. Doing that now. casualdejekyll  17:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Serious comment: I genuinely believe that this !vote should be struck and nullified, given the context of Therapyisgood's behavior which has since resulted in them being temp-blocked. I would strike it myself, but am not comfortable doing so, having supported the RfA. -- Dylan 620 (he/him · talk · edits) 17:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)  (Ironically, striking this; it seems like my suggestion was not a helpful one, and for that I apologize. -- Dylan 620  (he/him · talk · edits) 19:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC))
 * No. Striking other people's opposes isn't a thing. Or at least, it shouldn't be. casualdejekyll  18:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It happens from time to time for patently absurd opposes. No comment on whether this constitutes that. Best to leave to the discretion of an uninvolved admin, or better still a bureaucrat, who have community consensus to clerk RfAs as appropriate. -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 18:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it has to stay, unfortunately. I personally find it to be disruptive, non-germane to the promotion discussion, and definitely in the vein of what I would call a bad faith contribution, but it superficially touches upon (theoretically) relevant matters, and we have to be especially careful about protecting this process from actions which would chill feedback and compromise the scrutiny of candidates for this level of influence and power tools. That's why RfA has long been the arduous process it has been and the community resistant to being to aggressive about reforms in this area: there is a recognition of competing interests here, some of which militate very heavily for allowing a maximum of open discourse here, relative to other areas on the project.  So I don't see any admin striking the !vote and I think that's for the best.  But it's not going to have an impact here, even as far as changing the logged closing percentage.  All the editor in question did is flag their deeply combative attitude and borderline incompetence with policy and procedure for a large number of community members and admins to remember, the next time it happens in a space we might not have our hands nearly so tied in. So good luck to them if they persist with the PAs. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 18:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, casualdejekyll  18:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Another editor is blocked for interrupting the rubber stamp party? Not surprising but it is wrongheaded - telling editors to get a job earns a 31 hour block. tsk tsk. This is at least the third time in recent memory that an editor got blocked for ivoting in an RFA. And why 31 hours? Ridiculous. Supposed to preventative and not putative - what does a 31 hour block prevent? If I was not such a big fan of TLC I would switch my ivote. It is also sad that candidates react in RFAs to foolishness and jokes, but they sit on their hands when a dissenter gets pounded down. Shame shame. Lightburst (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I do agree that a 31 hour block is an over-reaction, and if this had been an ANI thread with somebody directly complaining about something Thereapyisgood said to them, this wouldn't have happened - or at least there would be complaints about it. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The block is for personal attacks directed at Tamzin here, and other editors at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Further disruption seemed quite likely given the pattern of multiple uses of the same insult in the same day, and the inevitable egging-on they would get from further commenters here if not blocked. If they had limited themselves to just opposing, there would have been no block. signed,Rosguill talk 18:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that part I agree with, LB. That was a blatantly unhelpful PA no matter how I slice it, and the comment wasn't even directed at the RfA candidate but rather someone who merely dared to question TIG's logic.  And as Tamzin pointed out, it's not even the first time today that TIG made a comment along those lines to a fellow community member.  It was wholly inappropriate, regardless of the context, and TIG had every opportunity to strike it but chose not to.  That block is entirely on them.  Ritchie may very well be correct that this could have been glossed over at ANI, but that doesn't mean such hesitation to respond to a PA would necessarily be a good thing.  I don't know whether I would have made the call to block under these circumstances as a mop, but it's certainly within the scope of administrative discretion, all things considered. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 18:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * TIG is a productive community member and content creator. They have GAs and DYKs and they are not a troll. Maddening that we have election monitors who punish an opposer - this is at least the third time I have seen an oppose ivoter blocked for something minor related to an RFA oppose. Nobody badgers the "why not" support ivotes. Lightburst (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that being a "content creator" and having GAs and FAs exempts one from being expected to engage civilly. Thank you for enlightening me, Lightburst. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that the civility policy says the first response to a snippy comment MUST be a block. For examples, search for "Malleus Fatuorum" in the ANI archives. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Some odd comments from you here Ritchie. I thought the response to anything you don't like is a block? Like when someone opposes an RfA. Bam! Blocked. And when the community unanimously decides that your block is fucking abysmal you don't even apologise or take responsibility. Also, I don't know why you told Therapyisgood to take a few days break. Wouldn't it just be easier to block them so they have to take the break? That would mean they don't have to decide, right? I suggest you be the one who takes a few days break, Ritchie, so you can reflect on your conduct at RfA. Willbb234 19:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Jesus, see where getting our Wheaties pissed on ends up? @Willbb234, I don't know what your beef is with Ritchie, but if it's important enough let's discuss it at WP:XRV instead? Valereee (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * TIG wasn't blocked for not being a productive community member/content creator, nor for casting an oppose !vote. They were blocked for making a PA. Nothing prevented them from responding to Tamzin's comment with a valid, compelling argument rather than juvenile ad hominems. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 19:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I gave them a warning ten minutes before the block, before any other edits had been made. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, to be honest, I thought yours was a fairly balanced approach, Ritchie. But I'm also not going to lose sleep over Rosguill deciding a stronger message needed to be sent.  I guess I'm somewhere between your two perspectives on the matter. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 19:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with that outcome, though we should be careful about not overcorrecting too much in the other direction: TIG's oppose is clearly on petty, personal grounds and contains no particularized arguments that hold water as a valid significant reasons to oppose the promotion, either individually or collectively. Their comments were both risible and pointless--and their responses to criticism involved PAs of a variety they apparently make a health habit of making.  All of this is justifiable grounds for commentary from community members and does not constitute "badgering" or "sanitization" by any stretch of the imagination, imo.  However, all that said, the potential side-effects of starting down the road of censoring !votes at an RfA are too severe to permit doing that to deal with just one tendentious editor.  They just aren't worth that response. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 18:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * the potential side-effects of starting down the road of censoring !votes at an RfA are too severe to permit doing that to deal with just one tendentious editor — when you put it that way, it's awfully difficult to argue with that logic. -- Dylan 620 (he/him · talk · edits) 19:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved admin, so I boldly collapsed and indented it, for reasons explained in the edit summary. That's what would happen in any other type of discussion, no reason to deviate from that here. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 20:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There's a pretty big difference between an indefinite for sockpuppetry (as you cited for precedent) and a very short block. The vote itself wasn't disruptive - the comments in response to it were. The user in question isn't topic banned, or page blocked, or anything like that. Maybe they should be; that's a different question.  casualdejekyll  20:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * TLC has already personally responded to other nonsense in the RFA, and it is not encouraging that they allow this badgering and refactoring nonsense to continue: up to and including erasing a valid ivote. If you are erasing an oppose ivote in order to create your fictional landslide I will take their place and you can block me too. This has gone on in too many RFAs. Sorry TLC. Lightburst (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, the nominee hasn't edited in 17 hours. I don't think any of the comments here are her responsibility. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 20:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you think an RFA candidate is not watching this shit show you are mistaken. TLC is better than this. Lightburst (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with you on this point, L235. casualdejekyll  20:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, the landslide is still very much real - at least, I'm not sure how you could describe 99.7% support as NOT a landslide - that's literally better than what the Workers' Party of Korea gets in the North Korean elections (87.5%, which is pretty damn low considering it's de facto illegal to vote against them). casualdejekyll  20:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is misapplication of WP:BLOCK which says: Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. There is also WP:WHYBLOCK which outlines a reason to block: persistent or severe personal attacks - this was neither persistent nor severe. Next we have the striking of the ivote which is nowhere in any policy. This is why I am careful when granting an administrator a lifetime appointment. We have multiple administrators here who are misapplying policy. Lightburst (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "We have multiple administrators here who are misapplying policy." What's new?   :( Leaky caldron (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the user blocked has a history of personal attacks. I think the point of the block was to tell them to stop being a dick, and (correctly applied) should have nothing to do with the !vote, which should be kept unstruck. casualdejekyll  21:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Whoa, @Lightburst. The candidate is in no way responsible for anything that goes on in her RfA. She may respond occasionally to something, but that doesn't mean she's moderating the discussion in any way, or that she's expected to. She's not allowing badgering or refactoring. She has zero to do with any of that. In fact if she did try to do that, I think it's highly likely people would loudly object. Valereee (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I reverted the collapsed ivote. To reflect the actual election, I will take the place of the oppose ivote if it is hatted or erased. I see no consensus or policy to support erasing the ivote. And Valereee I think a good candidate would demonstrate admin-like behavior. And doing nothing while an editor is badgered, blocked and has their ivote erased is not what I expect of administrators. Lightburst (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Lightburst, this isn't your first rodeo. You must know from experience that any not-directly-invited interaction by an RfA candidate with opposers or neutrals is highly likely to be viewed as causing more problems than it solves. Valereee (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, if you'll notice, I objected to the collapse. Valereee (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I noticed and hoped that you or another administrator with clout would undo the outside-of-policy action. Lightburst (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't see it as out-of-policy. I saw it as something I disagreed with. Valereee (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been compared to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, now I can add Kim Jong Un to the list. What can you do but laugh? The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 22:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, for the record, I was comparing User:theleekycauldron to Kim Jong Un, not you... I realize how that sounds. Uh. I didn't mean it like that. I was just pointing out that Lightburst's "fictional landslide" comment didn't make sense. Friendly banter, don't block. I obviously respect you as an editor despite the fact we disagree on striking the !vote. casualdejekyll  02:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's what I recommend. Also wine. Valereee (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That helps too, I like a little gin as well. Would happily share with anyone here. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 22:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Speaking as an administrator who was in a situation almost identical to theleekycauldron's five years ago, I encourage everyone to move on from this conversation. Cullen328 (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree with @Cullen328 above-- I think unnecessary drama around votes with poor/controversial/silly rationales has acted as a serious deterrent for quite a few potential candidates. For example, when I co-nominated Whpq for adminship there was significant discussion about a support vote and a neutral vote and the other nominator, but none of it really had to do with the candidate, and only added unnecessary conflict and stress to a difficult process. If you find an editor consistently makes poor votes or otherwise creates unnecessary drama at RfA, propose a topic ban for them after the run is over. Find the route with the least drama, and what is best for the future of the process-- which I think is set to become increasingly contentious because of how high-profile Wikipedia has become, and how much we are in the real world. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree if any editor consistently opposes for a frivolous reason or out of principle not connected to the candidate they should be topic banned from RfAs.  Doug Weller  talk 08:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  has entered the chat … Daniel Case (talk) 10:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Based on the initial statement, the opposing person's WP history, and coupled with the lack of objectively coherent rationale, the evidence suggests that the opposing person had an operation intent on disrupting the RfA, which is evident that it succeeded. A reasonable and prudent editor with the opposing person's knowledge of WP policy, procedures, and culture would reasonably understand the standard operating procedures for this event. Furthermore, upon said disruption, a reasonable and prudent editor would expect a massive response the opposing side. Based on the lack of follow-up or sound rationale for the aforementioned oppose, the opposing person is now able to observe the ensuing drama and conflict among community members. Notwithstanding the intent or lack of intent to disrupt, I would caution against any punitive repercussions against such editors, save for vulgarity or similar offenses; however, henceforth, I would discourage nourishing the provacteurs. It's me... Sallicio!$\color{Red} \oplus$ 14:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Conversation here should obviously be wound up, but noting for the record that this matetr has moved to ANI, and there may actually be reason to strike the vote based on what has been presented there. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)