Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/LaundryPizza03

This is an RfA talk page.

While voting and most discussion should occur on the main RfA page, sometimes discussions stray off-topic or otherwise clutter that page. The RfA talk page serves to unclutter the main RfA page by hosting discussions that are not related to the candidacy.

Please remain calm and civil in discussions on both pages, avoiding personal attacks and harassment. Uninvolved administrators can still fully intervene in RfAs.
Discussions should stay on-topic; consider moving or continuing discussions that are going off-topic elsewhere.
Move discussions not germane to the candidacy here, then link them with {{subst:rfan|dm|name of section header}}, indented to the original vote. Be conservative in using the template; obvious trolls and disruptive participants need not be noticed.
Otherwise, avoid starting discussions here if they would be of interest to RfA participants and can fit on the main RfA page; generally, discussions should begin at the "General comments" section or as an indented reply to a vote.

I sure wish there was a way of "pausing" a process just opened

Not speaking to this specific case necessarily, but if I were such a candidate (and I once was such a candidate unprepared for the run itself), it would be nice to be able to freeze (perhaps fully protect) a process so usual nomination statements, disclaimers and other normal preparations could be finalized. I'm not sure this procedural topic came up in the mountain of RFA discussions last year. I'm certain there are a million good reasons not to do so. But in this case, I wish the process could focus better on the candidate's merits and less on their unfamiliarity with the process. We call it optional, but using that review can be a lot more enlightening (and less painful) than watching respected users raise valid concerns against your candidacy in good faith. BusterD (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, I think withdrawing and resubmitting at a later date would make more sense than simply pausing mid-process. In this particular case, the candidate chose to part with tradition and go for a self-nomination. An experienced nominator would have guided him through the traditional preparation steps, and written a fitting nomination. For one reason or another, this candidate didn't want that, supplied no nomination text, provided an ~~evasive answer to Q2~~ answer to Q2 that may come across as evasive, and no answers at all to any of the optional questions, avoiding even the conventional declaration about editing for pay. The candidate sat on his draft RfA for almost three days before transcluding it into the main RfA page. It would have taken less than an hour to look at other recent RfAs, and follow their style. This attitude seems lazy, if not lackadaisical and disrespectful to those who took the time to write the optional questions. I don't think pausing it would help in this case. An early withdrawal would at least keep the door open for a future candidacy. Owen× ☎ 16:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No argument from me. Lessons are often learned best when they bring natural consequences. It was a passing thought. IMHO, every candidate should go through ORCP to acquire the sort of feedback (and nominators, too) necessary to survive a week of grilling. I'd like to make the point this particular process isn't representative of most runs and I hope nobody short strokes this unfortunate outcome as part of the "toxic" environment sometimes associated with RfA. This candidate did not line their ducks in a row first, which implies that they hadn't read Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, a primer written specifically to help candidates avoid situations like this one. BusterD (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that ORCP is that helpful for a lot of editors. Nominators or friends will fill you in if you let them know that you're thinking of running. Also, speaking for myself, I was well aware of what concerns would be raised. I don't think the limited feedback from ORCP would have helped in my, or many others', case. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wouldn't have wanted to add another week to the process, myself. Seven days was long enough. -- asilvering (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, noms and buds will vote for you early and encourage you, but will not savage you with accurate & biting feedback, as Kudpung used to do so well at ORCP. I hate to keep bringing up TLC's case (because she's an exceptional youngster who has blossomed as an adult human being while a sysop), but her measured responses to prior negative feedback became reasons she made such an attractive admin candidate after having to withdraw the first time. Except for questions, the AELECT process provides virtually no a priori feedback during the process; in the first elections we had a number of fully qualified candidates with large numbers of oppose votes, and none of those received any indication of why this was the case. All candidates need non-judgmental but direct feedback to see what they don't see. I ask editors I don't necessarily know to review my pagespace in a detached manner; IMHO, this is even more important with reviewing my behavior. Adminship is often more demanding than friendship. BusterD (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had a situation last week in which I had made a poor admin choice, and when brought to ANI all the admins rallied around me until one of them asked a direct question which caused me to re-evaluate my own action as an error, and then undo my block as overly punitive. This was a good thing for everybody. I need to be able to handle such accurate critique without personalizing it. I am allowed to make stupid choices from time to time, and I need all of you guys to prevent me from ignoring or minimizing it. BusterD (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One thing we definitely should do - which we do for admin elections - is not permit comments or votes until a candidate has accepted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But for self-nominations, transcluding their application page to the main RfA page conveys acceptance and opens the discussion. That's how we always treated RfBs, for example. Accepting one's own nomination is redundant. Owen× ☎ 21:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We trust the jockeys at Churchill Downs not to bolt before the gate is open, but the gate is kept closed until the referees are sure it will be a fair start... BusterD (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The candidate indicates on their user page that they are neuroatypical (ADHD/ASD) - I'll take it as reasonable that we should not have a reason to question the declaration and ask that we be very careful about imputing intentions (eg evasiveness) into what is not being said, nor responded to, nor correctly done. For those who haven't, I would really encourage reading WP:AUTIST and signing the Neurotypical / Autism spectrum interaction pact. The talk page comment urging LP03 to be an admin with 10 signatories (of which five are admins) and the editor's subsequent actions might be seen in a different light. I'm a little worried we're dealing with something complex here which requires a much softer touch. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind-hearted and considerate comment, Goldsztajn! I reworded my reply above to clarify that the answer to Q2 may come across as evasive, possibly with no intention by the candidate to be evasive. My wife is on the spectrum, so I know first hand how difficult it can be for someone with ASD to pick up on social cues, and know how to conduct oneself in the presence of unwritten rules. It's important to remember that an admin is expected to interact with editors on a frequent basis about administrative actions they take. We have quite a few admins who are on the spectrum. I'm sure it is harder for them to engage in those interactions, but they do a great job. I should also note that my !vote in this RfA was not based on the lack of nomination text, nor on the answers to any of the questions. I do, however, acknowledge the legitimate expectations of those who want their questions answered in a timely manner by someone who chose to submit his candidacy for their review. Owen× ☎ 11:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those admins are participating in this RfA; I don't think you could pick out who they are, unless you already knew. Honestly, I think our insistence on civility and AGF mean that it's often allistics screwing up the social rules of engagement on wikipedia, not autistics. I do think it makes the AWOT notice an even harder bait-and-switch than usual, though. -- asilvering (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Owen× ☎ 17:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

discourse around "question 0"

can someone link me to the discussion about this question 0 stuff ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFC. How it became policy that it's a standard required answer without being a standard required question. —Cryptic 23:25, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Without context, one might think that there may be a nefarious reason for having a question 0. A change in the RfA preload template, if it has not be done so, should be in order to reflect the update that the RfC had settled on. I understand that typically candidates would disclose themselves for paid editing, but evidently there will be some who don't. Maybe a template switch or a html comment in the preload template to remind would be admins to make the disclosure. – robertsky (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also could it not have been a normally asked question? E.g. "Per RfC, please answer this question about paid editing..." – robertsky (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 249 § Standard question from RfC at WT:Admin for discussion on whether or not there should be a standard question regarding paid editing. isaacl (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to the nominee ...

...Is this discussion ready for a WP:SNOW closure? The voting trajectory seems obvious, and even the nominee has moved on, so I don't see a withdraw happening. Steel1943 (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it will stick, but I've kind of paused it, removed it from WP:RFA, and posted at WP:BN to inform the crats that I did so. There has, in the past, been a serious reluctance for non-crats to actually close these early, especially snow closes that are 50%-50% liek this one, but the situation here doesn't seem typical. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One problem, the watchlist notice is still up (at least on my end). Any plans on removing that somehow? fanfanboy (block_talk) 19:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. That should have been solved when it got removed from WP:RFA, shouldn't it? Floquenbeam (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The bot at User:Amalthea/RfX/RfA count runs every 30 minutes. The update will kick in soon. Owen× ☎ 19:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX: Oh. So this temporary "fix" will probably just make it worse? I can undo if so. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the long term, probably yes. fanfanboy (block_talk) 19:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux and Stephen: between them seem to know everything about the watchlist notice; hoping one of them is active. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bot that updates the RFA count, it should clear naturally. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: Just leave the fix in place for the few more minutes until the bot kicks in and updates the count to zero. Owen× ☎ 19:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the bot just updated the count, so I rolled back your temp fix, Floquenbeam. All good. Owen× ☎ 19:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict, yup that. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, Floquenbeam. Owen× ☎ 19:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - even though I opposed, even if I was a supporter this was needed. Giant Snowman 19:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, good call by Floquenbeam. The radio silence is concerning and that single handedly caused multiple votes to switch, myself included. Hope they take it well and constructively. Their ADHD/ASD is also not a good combo either. — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1, sad that he most likely would've passed if he didn't fumble with the nom/questions. charlotte ^👸♥ 19:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sad and disappointing, but the right thing to do. I had emailed LP03 earlier today, trying to explain why withdrawing it may be the easiest and most courteous thing to do. (Maybe others have tried to contact them as well, I don't know, but I felt like they needed to know that they can do something.) I'd have preferred to see them take action on this, and to have it closed that way; especially considering that they have actively edited today. Renerpho (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone notify LP03 this was done? Otherwise it looks to a bystander that the RFA just disappeared. Intothat darkness 19:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm typing up a note to him now. It'll be there in a couple of minutes. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I opposed, but he does need to know it was pulled/paused and why. Intothat darkness 19:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I disagree with this "pausing". We should either close it completely or leave it running. Given the trajectory of the RfA, I would not be opposed to an early WP:SNOW closure, and I think that's what we should have done. Instead, this pausing feels like peeling the band-aid off slowly rather than quickly. Mz7 (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was more or less the right move, because the RfA so far has been kind of weird, what with the candidate not participating at all. A pause is the right thing to do, because it gives the candidate time to catch up and for everyone else to catch their breath. Given the circumstances, I think a WP:SNOW closure would be just as hasty as this nomination. Cremastra _talk 20:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should close it if LaundryPizza wants to move on from it, but I wouldn't want to brand a roughly 50-50 RfA with SNOW. It wouldn't even be a SNOW close anyway (WP:NOTSNOW), it should just be considered a courtesy close. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the nominee is active on the RFA again, so this discussion is probably moot now. Steel1943 (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's going into SNOW now :/ — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please

I've asked this before at least one other RFA, but we can all see where this is going. Unless and until there's a radical turn-around can we please just have a little compassion and let this quietly roll off everyone's watchlists? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And as I've also said before, I don't think we need to keep hitting someone because they haven't cried mercy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Goldsztajn (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 I have said as much on the page. Daniel Case (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why hasn't this been closed? We can hardly keep the thing open but ask people not to vote. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, as I noted, nominators would have withdrawn long before this point. But in this case, the nominator's unfamiliarity with the process has led him to just walk away from the RfA, our monitor dropped out, and in the absence of anyone else with the clear authority no one feels like growing enough stones to do it.

So, we are left with this spectacle of a virtual beatdown, an outcome I never imagined, as my oppose !vote makes clear.

For once there is an RfA that leaves no doubt that the process is broken ... This is a runaway train with no brakes.

The only reason to maintain it through the deadline that I can possibly imagine remaining is someone not thinking we have enough to argue about in our frequent debates about RfA reform. Or that they aren't lively enough. Daniel Case (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rarely, if ever, has [Bishonen] actually created articles other than page moves or directs

This is only tenuously related to LaundryPizza's RFA, and surely not very interesting to most people, so I'll try to be brief. I don't understand Tamsier's criticism of my oppose and her claim that I haven't created any articles (to speak of) myself but expect the candidate to do so. "Rarely, if ever, has [Bishonen] actually created articles other than page moves or directs" — "I'm not talking about page moves/redirect, but actual page creation - i.e., full articles like the rest of us editors who are not part of the "upper-class" Admin clique." I'm the main author of a number of Featured articles - some of them admittedly written up from a stub rather than from scratch, e.g. The Great Fire of London, Swedish emigration to the United States, The Country Wife. Maybe that means they don't show up with the tools Tamsier used? There's Restoration Spectacular (definitely from scratch) and John Vanbrugh. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition is one I quite like, if that matters. I nominated some of those for Featured myself, but probably not most — it was (nonsensically) considered immodest back in the day. If you care enough to look at the histories of these, or — simpler — use the excellent "Who wrote that?" browser extension on them (if you acquire that, you will never regret it), you should gather a different impression than from this which Tamsier refers to - not sure how that one works. Those articles are mostly from the earlier half of my stay on Wikipedia, if that is a problem, and I think some of them have been de-featured since. But I was definitely an admin when I worked on them. Tamsier suggests I have mainly spent the past twenty years "indefinitely blocking editors with great satisfaction", coasting on being "very popular". Maybe. I'm not sure any more. But the notion that I haven't created content is mistaken. Bishonen | tålk 17:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

To save the curious some time, Tamsier's rant about Bishonen is explained by the thread at the top of Tamsier's talk page. Tansier is annoyed with Bishonen about unrelated things, and decided that LP03's already-stressful RFA would be a great place to attack her further. I guess there are no "monitors", so maybe Tansier gets away with this? The only silver lining to this is that other editors, if ever tempted to attack someone for not doing enough content work, are reminded to actually do their homework better first. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using the word "attack" because you know very well that was not an attack, and you also know how damaging such an accusation is here. If you are going to accuse me of something please accuse me of something I did rather than trying to put words into my word in order to sanction me or get others to do it. This goes against our principles of civility and I'm asking you to desist. It is gross misrepresentation of my statements and you know this (admittedly or not). That was not an attack and you are trying to put words into my mouth. I was responding to what she wrote in her oppose rationale, and it had nothing at all to do with any issues between her and I. My issue with her had already been addressed ages ago and it has nothing to do with this RfA. Whether you choose to believe that or not, is your prerogative. If you want to have a go at me, go on the merit of my argument and diffs. Had she not made that statement (which totally took me by surprise), I would not have commented on it. You know what you are doing by using the word "attack" here, and I am asking you to desist, I take that as a threat to garner support to saction me, which goes against the spirit of this project no matter how powerful one is. She has responded above and explained her position which is her right to do so. Tamsier (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was an attack, in the common and WP meanings of the word. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of transparency, Floquenbeam (an Admin on English Wiki) has gone to my talk page and called me "a horrible person." I doubt that is in keeping with our civility policy. That is a direct personal attack. I have never referred to anyone on this RfA like that. Tamsier (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Very poor indeed. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, any admin can step in even without a monitor. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tamsier's unredacted support comment and responses. Abecedare (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per PARAKANYAA and Rjjiii. The candiate has also created many articles. Yes, not a lot, but at least they've made great effort in creating articles. I am however, quite confused by Oppose 17's statement regarding content creation. By her rationale, is she saying that she shouldn't be an Admin either considering the fact that since taking the tools, most of her Wiki career revolves around indefinitely blocking editors (with great satisfaction based on the comments, edit summaries left and contribution history) and rarely, if ever, has she actually created articles other than page moves or directs see articles creation history? Her last article creation was in 2017 (Nadja Malacrida - a bit of a mess as a start [1]), and before that was in 2014 (Jonas Jonsson (19th-century builder) - which started as a lenghty bio with one source [2]), and her first ever edit as a signed in user was in 2004 "Trying to create a redirect...", something she later devoted much of her Wiki career on (see her contribution history). Although I agree with her general sentiment that article creation is a must, the candidate has at least created several articles and have been pretty honest on their user page that most of their work revolves around redirects, categories, or disambiguation pages, but also have created articles and upload files. I am just taken back and confused by Oppose 17's rationale. Is she saying one rule for her and another rule for other candidates? Perhaps she can clarify. Oppose 1 is actually an article creator and has been for years before being made an admin. Therefore, I can understand where he is coming from. However, Oppose 17's rationale totally took me by surprise, because she is practically demanding other candidates to do what she is not doing, and hasn't done for two decades. Am I wrong? Maybe I am, but her article creation history says otherwise. And I'm not talking about page moves/redirect, but actual page creation - i.e., full articles like the rest of us editors who are not part of the "upper-class" Admin clique. Please let's treat others how we would like to be treated. And this is not a personal jibe at her, but an analysis of the statement that she has made on another editor's RfA which contradicts her own contribution history. I know I will get a lot of flack and eye rolls for this, because she is very popular, and extremely powerful here. And my head is probably on the next chopping block. I know this! In the words of Henry II: "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" OMG! I'm finished! The army would be coming for me. My head is on the next chopping block! In all seriousness, having gone through the contribution history of the candidate and read all the supports and opposes, that one took me more by suprise, and it would be hypocritical and cowardly of me (not to mention goes against my principles) to read that and not call it out since apparently no one else is willing to do it even if they agree with me. The candidate has made great contributions since joining, and would be a great asset to the Admin team. I wish him the best. Tamsier (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamsier, if you're going to spend most of your support vote criticizing an editor in the opposing column, you should at least have the courtesy to ping them. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is no point in me pinging her now since you've already did! I did say the army would come! For your info, I didn't ping her not because I'm afraid of her (depite her power as we can see), but because using the S/O number seems to be the norm on this RfA when responding to a comment made by an editor on either column. And if I took it upon myself to go through this entire page, I'm sure she can too (or others can do it for her, which you did). Most importantly, I didn't find the need to ping her because I didn't want the candidate's RfA to be cluttered with irrelevant back and forth rhetoric with the imperial guard. My comment was relevant, because it was a response to what she wrote in the oppose column - relating to this candidate - which could impact whether the candidate succeed or not. The question is: Did I made any misrepresentations/falsehoods based on her oppose rationale and the links I've shared? That is the question. If I made any errors/misrepresentations, please do share. If anyone else wants to have a go at me in defense of Oppose 17, please take it to my talk page. I don't want the candidate's RfA to be cluttered. I wrote what I wrote, because what I wrote were facts based on their own words and the diffs I've provided. I'm not changing it. If you think I've made a mistake, please feel free to correct me. For anything else, take it to my talk page. The same advice for anyone else that wants to share their 50 cents or jump in and have a go at me. Tamsier (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Surely that kind of thing goes on the talkpage of this RFA, rather than your talkpage, Tamsier. I've replied there. Bishonen | tålk 17:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I have redacted the parts of Tamsier's support (and the responses they engendered) that didn't concern the RFA candidate but were clearly a personal attack on an editor who had !voted in opposition and had previously sanctioned Tamsier as an admin. Such hijacking of an RFA to air personal grudges is something we should discourage and, in the absence of a monitor, I have done so as in my individual admin capacity. Any admin/bureaucrat is welcome to revert my actions. Abecedare (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is ADMINACCT applicable during an RfA?

Oppose (I doubt it's necesary to prefix with "Strong", as obviously there won't be a cratchat) for all the reasons. Fundamentally, their communication has been sufficiently poor to make WP:ADMINACCT concerns near-unassalable. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LaundryPizza03 isn't an admin, so ADMINACCT doesn't apply here. It's hard to believe that this needs to be pointed out. — Hex • talk 14:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. They want to be an admin so one of the first and most important things they need to demonstrate is that they understand the importance of communication and accountabilty. Unfortunately they failed to do so. It's even harder to believe that this needs to be pointed out. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 16:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to shoot someone down for breaking a policy, then that policy needs to exist in the first place. There is no equivalent policy which applies to RfAs. You explicitly referred to "ADMINACCT concerns", which can only exist in relation to a person who is subject to ADMINACCT. RfA doesn't operate on the Minority Report system where people get busted for things they haven't done yet. You want to critique someone's responsiveness, go ahead, but don't try to frame it in policy terms rather than as your personal reading of their vibes. — Hex • talk 16:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can only judge a prospective admin by what they have done already. And yes - though LP03 is not subject to ADMINACCT at the moment, if he becomes an admin he definitely will. To use an analogy - would you elect someone (in real life) to a position of trust if it was found that they are an irresponsible person or had a clear lack of communication skills? NOTE: I am not saying that LP03 is an irresponsible person, or that he has poor communication skills. It’s called an analogy - you’re not supposed to take it literally. 68.2.138.130 (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're agreeing with me but phrasing it as a question. — Hex • talk 17:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the contrary. I disagree. 68.2.138.130 (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then you've misunderstood what you're replying to. — Hex • talk 17:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The gist of what you are saying is that LP03 mustn’t be scrutinised in the light of WP:ADMINACCT because he’s not an admin, and that his responsiveness shouldn’t be critiqued in terms of that because he’s not an admin. 68.2.138.130 (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But what I’m trying to say is that ADMINACCT absolutely applies, because he can only be judged by what he has done so far, and as he is running for adminship, his actions should be judged like an admin actions. Maybe it is you who has misunderstood. 68.2.138.130 (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A policy doesn't justify evidence-free conjecture outside its defined area, no matter how much you want it to. — Hex • talk 21:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence-free? The user literally did not answer questions at his RfA and carried on editing as if it never existed. The RfA had to be paused to get him to answer the questions. 68.2.138.130 (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look - this has all been about the accountability of people who are admins, and who as a consequence are formally bound to certain expectations. Candidates at RfA are not formally bound by those expectations. Nor are they subject to a defined minimum frequency of interaction. That may be off-putting to people who assign this process a high level of importance and expect candidates to immediately jump through every hoop they hold up, but that's just how it is. The closest you'll get to that is Wikipedia:How to pass an RfA, which says: there is an expectation that questions... are answered immediately! This of course is not policy, just someone's opinion.

There have been a great many proposals to reform RfA, and I couldn't tell you if any of them included a definition of acceptable responsivity, but certainly nothing of the kind has ever gained consensus. We're expected to abide by the standards which have and which is documented. To say there are "WP:ADMINACCT concerns" about an RfA candidate based on frequency of their interactions here is to impose a personal standard, not one formally agreed upon by the community. Worse still, this imposition makes the logical jump that someone operating entirely within the existing rules of this process will in the future behave in ways that contravene an entirely different set of rules.

I said above "You want to critique someone's responsiveness, go ahead" - the RfA process allows you to directly ask a candidate anything. But this doesn't mean that your critique itself is beyond analysis or reproach. This is what I meant by evidence-free: you have two kinds to consider, namely the candidate's project history, and how they answer the questions which they're asked. Their interacting with the RfA process in a way which is entirely permitted, by virtue of lack of instructions to do otherwise, is not "evidence" of anything they will do in the future. To hold it up as such is baseless speculation. Worse still, it's speculation of a fault in someone's character, made upon the record in a public forum. Anyone who engages with a candidate in this way based on their personal feelings about how the process should work needs to own that fact and how it reflects upon them.

If someone thinks the RfA process needs redefining to mandate a candidate's maximum acceptable time frame for interacting with questions, and whether they're allowed to continue with their usual business around the project until they do, then there's nothing stopping them from proposing that. I'd rate the chance of it getting consensus as about one in a hundred at best, but the option is there. Until then RfA participants need to not operate on the basis of standards which exist only in their own minds. — Hex • talk 10:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's better things to do than keep arguing. I still stand by my point, but I'm going to drop the stick. 68.2.138.130 (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Can this discussion be moved to the talk page please? It's not particularly helpful to the candidate, I think. (I call it a discussion, but since four other experienced editors cited the same concern as me—and one of them an admin—it seems rather selective to badger my oppose this way.) Thank you, too, Anon.138.130 for making the cogent arguments you have done. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course! 68.2.138.130 (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course it would be better, and totally normal and not disruptive at all for me to have the exact same conversation with five different people at the same time. No, you were the most recent comment on the page when I looked, so you got the reply. Congrats. — Hex • talk 21:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course it would be better, and totally normal and not disruptive at all for you to read the entirety of the !votes before jumping to a conclusion and then WP:BLUDGEONing. @Bureaucrats: please remove this unhelpful back and forth to the talk page, or Abecedare, as you did earlier. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 22:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like you understand the essay that you just tried to cite either. Great stuff. Crats, do your thing. — Hex • talk 22:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi Done We are now on the talk page. 68.2.138.130 (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that ADMINACCT does apply to non-admin holders of advanced rights, like pagemover and rollbacker, both of which the candidate has. I can't find this stated explicitly, though. Still, it is clear to me that in practice all the behavioral advice (e.g. explain your actions, don't sock) applies to non-admins. Toadspike [Talk] 06:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toadspike, your impression is absolutely correct. It seems curious to have to reiterate that so many times here though. BTW since—whatever this thread's title—this is effectively a discussion on their oppose rationales too—paging Cabayi, Benison, Dclemens1971 and Pythoncoder. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 08:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here because I was pinged. Obviously LP03 is not subject to ADMINACCT since he is not an admin. But it is also patently reasonable to make a decision about someone's qualifications to be an admin based on how well they adhere to the general behavioral expectations of admins. We can't recall someone who's not an admin for failure to follow ADMINACCT but we can decide not to grant permissions if we see a very noticeable and unexplained falling short of the spirit of the policy. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Dclemens1971. I will not be !voting for any sysop candidate who wasn't already adhering to ADMINACCT. It's not any particular hardship. An admin's only armor is the trust of the entire community. Without such trust none of us could function in our chosen roles. BusterD (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BusterD Perhaps we should update one of the admin policy pages (more specifically, one of the RfA policy pages) to make the expectations clearer? Maybe this RfA should be a lesson to future candidates. 68.2.138.130 (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @Dclemens1971, @Fortuna imperatrix mundi, @Toadspike, @Hex for their thoughts. 68.2.138.130 (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's an idea, but per WP:Creep it's usually better to not add extra wording to guidance pages which are already functioning well. I wanted to say that I have zero problems with User:Hex's view of the WP:ADMINACCT policy page; they are absolutely correct candidates and other non-admins are not required to hold themselves to the same standard of behavior if they don't wish to do so. Toadspike, Dclemens1971 and I make a quite different observation: many wikipedians may choose NOT to support, endorse, or !vote for candidates (or other applicants) who are not already rigorously following the policy. BusterD (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+ me too Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't want to put you next to demi-scoundrels like us... BusterD (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just assumed I was instantly forgetable :D Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's the new sceenname... BusterD (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this RfA will most certainly prove a memorable lesson to ALL future candidates or applicants of ANY kind on wikipedia. BusterD (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BusterD Well, Toadspike says that I was under the impression that ADMINACCT does apply to non-admin holders of advanced rights... 68.2.138.130 (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True. But I'll bet they agree with my interpretation as well. BusterD (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. Thank you for clarifying my point, BusterD. My impression on the literal application of ADMINACCT has been corrected, but I agree that it is important to follow anyways. Toadspike [Talk] 08:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Here because of the ping), yes ADMINACCT isn't applicable for RfA candidates, but you don't simply wake up one fine morning and become an admin. You show the signs that you are ready to take the baton. And IMO, RfA is a process that scrutinize the candidate's history to see if they are fit for that. What's the point otherwise? So yea, it's not applicable but it should be demonstrated. — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP comments in support or oppose sections to moved down to comments?

Right or wrong? Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with the extended confirmed right. Other comments [my bolding] are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not administrators or extended confirmed may be moved to this section if mistakenly placed elsewhere. This is from today's version of the section. If I'm wrong I apologize. If I'm right, we really miss having an experienced monitor this time, don't we? BusterD (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on your talk page. Cheers -- 68.2.138.130 (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough I guess - but how am I supposed to engage in discussion with a user if my comments are in a place they can't see? Either way this discussion is moot as the Hex thread has been moved to the talk page and I'm not planning on making any further comments at this RfA. 68.2.138.130 (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your being nice about it. Zero offense intended. It is a fact that "one of my wikifriends" is an IP contributor. I ask him occasionally to comment some of my blocks, since I'm still new at doing them (<250 total). BusterD (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:) 68.2.138.130 (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification on revision deletions

Not intended to be a criticism of anyone posting here, I promise. But further discussion isn't going to be useful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello!

I am here to request clarification on revision deletions performed by @Daniel, Pickersgill-Cunliffe, and Queen of Hearts:, which appear to have been made without a visible reason in the summary. The specific actions are:

2025-04-14T20:48:17 Pickersgill-Cunliffe talk contribs changed visibility of a revision on page Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LaundryPizza03: edit summary hidden and username hidden (RD5: Other valid deletion under deletion policy) (thank)
2025-04-14T20:49:45 Pickersgill-Cunliffe talk contribs changed visibility of a revision on page Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LaundryPizza03: edit summary hidden (RD5: Other valid deletion under deletion policy) (thank)
2025-04-14T21:15:27 Queen of Hearts talk contribs changed visibility of a revision on page Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LaundryPizza03: content hidden (Ibid.) (thank)
2025-04-14T21:28:22 Daniel talk contribs changed visibility of 6 revisions on page Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LaundryPizza03: content hidden (ticket:2025041410012148) (thank)
2025-04-14T21:29:09 Daniel talk contribs changed visibility of a revision on page Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LaundryPizza03: content hidden (ticket:2025041410012148) (thank)

For the interest of the population of Wikipedia can you please give us an explanation because we curious.

Thanks! :3 - delta (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of revision deletion is that there is material that shouldn't be public. Asking what it is in order to satisfy your curiosity pretty much defeats the purpose. For what it's worth, revdeling those revisions was uninteresting, reasonable, and within policy. Note that sometimes intermediate edits - which are not problems in and of themselves - must be revdel'd until the content that needs to not be public is actually removed. Perhaps this is what is confusing you. The content added in those non-problematic edits is still on the page, it's just the diff is no longer available. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do wonder why people tend to be attracted to/want to know the contents of deleted revisions more than regular reverted revisions. It's probably some sort of streisand effect, but interesting nonetheless. — E_F⁵ 18:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of surprised it hasn't been suppressed. Either way it's none of our business now. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.