Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/theleekycauldron

theleekycauldron

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (36/6/1); Scheduled to end 21:29, 3 February 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)

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: Pahunkat, if I might butt in here with some links. This is that Gibraltar situation from 2012: [2] - 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)

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

Optional question from Parabolist

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

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)
13. 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)
14. 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)
15. Support without hesitation --Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 23:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
16. 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)
17. 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)
18. 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)
19. 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)
20. Support - Plenty of reasons to support; none, as yet, to oppose. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
21. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
22. 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)
23. 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)
24. 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)
25. Support. This is probably the first candidate I've heard of before nomination. Pamzeis (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
26. Support. Looking at her edits, Leeky has a strong background at DYK with good edits. Sea Cow (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
27. Support No concerns. Severestorm28 00:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
28. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
29. Support, all good. SVcode(Talk) 00:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
30. 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)
31. 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)
32. 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)
33. 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)
34. 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)
35. 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)
36. 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)

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)

2. 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)

   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)

3. 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)

4. 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)

   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)

5. 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)

   1. 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)

6. 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)

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)

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)

---

• 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)

---

• @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)

---

• 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)

---

• 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)