Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/theleekycauldron 2: Difference between revisions

theleekycauldron

The following discussion is preserved as a request for adminship that has been automatically placed on hold pending a decision as to the outcome. Please do not modify the text. The result of the discussion will be posted soon.

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (298/1/0); Scheduled to end 17:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Nomination

theleekycauldron (talk · contribs) – (First, don't confuse theleekycauldron with the other user Leaky caldron!)

Talented, kindhearted, dedicated, caring, and conscientious, theleekycauldron embodies the traits of our finest administrators.

In theleekycauldron's three years as an active editor, her contributions have spanned a rare combination of prolific content writing, backend and maintenance, and technical contributions. Theleekycauldron has written four FAs/FLs, 12 GAs, and 65 DYKs. Her dedication at DYK is quite something to behold: in addition to promoting over 2,600 hooks to DYK's prep sets (making her DYK's most prolific active promoter), theleekycauldron has contributed to making DYK more accessible including by starting a draft reorganization of DYK's lengthy guidelines. Finally, she also contributes her technical skills as the author of the "PSHAW" script and the maintainer of GalliumBot. I don't personally like the term "need for the tools", but I think it's fair to say that theleekycauldron has a lot to contribute as a sysop in all of these domains.

Her work is well summed up in her citation to be Editor of the Week from last December: Recognized for her brilliant DYK prep work, eclectic article writing and active promotion at DYK, creating many prep sets and userscripts to speed up the process. She frequents WT:DYK, making quick decisions on nominations and significant contributions to discussions. leek's featured work ranges from United States congressional delegations from Hawaii to C. J. Cregg to the ever-debated Pronunciation of GIF, and her GAs are no less varied! Her sense of humor and ease of manner does not go unnoticed.

Since theleekycauldron's first RfA a year and a half ago, I've been eagerly awaiting the chance to support her second try. Theleekycauldron has grown quite a lot as an editor, and it's clear to me that she has been really thoughtful in incorporating feedback from that RfA into her everyday editing. I wholeheartedly endorse her sound judgment, communication, and temperament to be a sysop.

With that, it is my distinct privilege to submit theleekycauldron to the community for adminship. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Co-nomination statement

As one of the first people to oppose TLC's previous RFA, I am thrilled to be co-nominating her for a second RFA. When TLC withdrew that RFA, I saw that as a sign that she was listening and willing to take criticism, and I hoped we'd be here again in the future.

What I see now is a user that others are already coming to asking for help, a user who is hardworking, patient, and helpful to others. Those are all excellent qualities for an administrator, and I'm happy to see that they have maintained a lighthearted spirit while apparently taking on board the previous concerns about maturity and civil behavior.

As I've said many times, everyone makes mistakes (my own first RFA failed for similar reasons), it is what we do after we make an error that is the true test of character, and I'm happy to say that I beleive theleekycauldron has passed that test and would be a fine administrator. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination! My thanks to L235 and Beeblebrox for their help and counsel :) disclosures can be found here. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:30, 10 August 2023 (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: In the normal course of editing, I'll often stumble on a thing or two that needs admin work – in those cases, and others where some friendly admins might be needed, I'm happy to lend a hand. I have a broad range of technical, policy, and content experience, as well as a good disposition and sense of my limits.

Much of my normal beat as an editor involves Did you know, where I do a bunch behind the scenes. I know DYK inside and out and have firsthand experience in pretty much every part of the place, even those areas where advanced permissions are needed: promoting preps to queues, helping out at WP:ERRORS, adminbots, and other, more esoteric parts of DYK's functioning. DYK frequently experiences backlogs that are tough to deal with; the prep and queue systems, for example, can't store surpluses. If we can do more work than we can store, that energy is wasted, and we have no backup for times of deficit. That makes it important for DYK to maintain a consistently dedicated group of volunteers who are willing to keep up the jog over long periods of time – something I'm willing and able to do. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I've done my fair share of mainspace work, including three featured articles, a featured list, 12 good articles, and a total of 67 DYK credits. My editing is mostly in the worlds of television, American politics, and music, but I'm also a bit of an omnivore and am happy to help out in a wide range of areas. It's hard to pick a favorite, but a few honorable mentions to C. J. Cregg, an FA of a West Wing character and my indirect namesake; the seven other articles I've written about people who share my name; and pronunciation of GIF, an FA that embodies why I love learning.

I'm also proud of my work at DYK, where, as I mentioned above, I've lent more than a couple hands. I am the fifth most active promoter in DYK's recorded history (data starts from 2011), with over 2,600 logged promotions. I also help out with reviewing, raise questions at Wikipedia talk:Did you know and Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, and generally do my best to help keep the train moving. DYK is also the place where I most utilize my technological experience: I wrote the code for WP:PSHAW, a tool that streamlines the DYK promotion process for both prep builders and promoting admins. I also operate GalliumBot, which logs post-promotion changes to DYK hooks, maintains the DYK statistics tables, and maintains the list of DYK's most prolific promoters. Once upon a time, I also wrote DYK's monthly wrap, a pet project I've always wanted to return to. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:22, 10 August 2023 (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: Like most folks, while I don't often get into heated conflicts with other editors, I find myself in disagreements from time to time. Generally, I try to stay focused (which means not taking the source of stress personally), concede when and where I think I've been wrong, and avoid going in circles. When something does get under my skin, my goal is for me to be able to take apart what happened after, figure out what caused me to react the way I did, and keep that lesson in mind for next time. If you're an editor out there who's told me that I've done something wrong: thank you, I appreciate it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

---

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 question from usernamekiran

4. Hi. The stock question: In your opinion, what tanked your last RfA, and what changes did you make in regards with that? (bureaucrats, kindly feel free to consider these as two questions if necessary.) —usernamekiran (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

A: First, my thanks again to everyone who participated in my last RfA. The opposition expressed a lot of thoughtful, constructive feedback, most importantly related to maturity and temperament. In the year and a half since that RfA, I've worked really hard to incorporate it into my editing style and routine. I'm older, I've seen more of the wiki, I have a bit of a tougher skin. All told, I'm much better at responding to criticism with an open mind and a polite demeanor. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from Rotideypoc41352

5. What was your thought process behind clipping File:Sample of "Hayloft", by Mother Mother.mp3 to 30 seconds and not shorter?

A: Oh, nice catch! Looks like that was an oversight – when I was clipping the audio, I'd made a mental note of something to the effect of "it can't be longer than 30 seconds, but you should double-check on that one". Then, when I uploaded it, I realized that I'd actually forgotten to export the clip, instead uploading the full song, which drove the whole second half of that mental note out of my head. Thanks, and my bad! I've reuploaded the file clipped to 15 seconds, which should be within the 10% limit of the 3-minute song. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 16:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from Szmenderowiecki

6. In the previous RfA in question 12, you noted, when asked how you would use admin tools outside DYK, that Nothing comes to mind, no; in any case, I wouldn't be using the tools in new areas until I had built up a requisite experience similar to my level of knowledge at DYK. Now you claim that you have "a broad range of technical, policy, and content experience, as well as a good disposition and sense of my limits" (question 1). Yet most of the contribs as far as I saw are at least tangentially, if not directly, related to DYK. Because we cannot restrict adminship to DYK, which you do well, what is it exactly that you learned in 1.5 years that you now believe you are confident to have requisite experience in fields outside DYK? If this question is not clear enough, I'll rephrase it: in which areas have you diversified your editing or which areas did you start to watch in a way that would be relevant for your admin duties and to the extent that we could say is meaningful and also a big improvement to January 2022? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

A: Good question! I do think that both statements can be true. I do want to lend a hand wherever I can – at the same time, I'm not going to use the tools to dive headfirst into the water of a new area. I think it goes back to knowing your limits: For instance, I'd feel pretty okay revision-deleting blatant copyright infringement under WP:RD1, because between three years of content and DYK work, I'm pretty familiar with how the tool works, and it's useful to have in the box as a content creator and reviewer. At the same time, my sphere of competence doesn't extend across the observable universe: I wouldn't feel comfortable jumping into AE blocks, etc. Hope that helps clarify! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from Folly Mox

7. I feel like I read somewhere that DYK frequently experiences backlogs that are tough to deal with; the prep and queue systems, for example, can't store surpluses. If it would be desirable to build a DYK granary, do you have any ideas on how that might be done? Alternatively, if it is not desirable, can you explain why?

A: Thanks for the question :) I think the current system has a few main pluses that give it staying power: it generates ready-to-go sets by default, it doesn't require a gazillion subpages or constant messing with the protection level, and a lot of the current system infrastructure relies on it. But the problem of not being able to capitalize on spikes in prep-builder and admin activity is substantial, and it's something I really would like to address somewhere down the line. If I could redesign the system however I wanted, I would have a big pile that all promoted hooks go to by default. Then, prep builders can put together sets in rotating queues, and admins can put their seal on finished sets with {{DYKbotdo}}. Admins can even put together and verify their own sets, as long as someone else verified all the hooks at the prep-builder stage. The one problem with that system, other than updating the other parts of the infrastructure, is image storage – the templates get a little wonky when there's more than one image in a given space. But I think {{main page image/DYK}} could maybe be modified to handle that better. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from Soni

8. I understand that this is probably not policy, so this will have no bearing on my actual !vote. Editors who are not hyperactive may become confused on seeing two Wikimedians with too similar usernames, especially if they're both prolific editors. Given that you will (likely) become an admin, this confusion (with Leaky caldron) might get worse now. Would you consider a username change because of this? Soni (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

A: Thanks for asking! I think it's a bit of a "no harm, no foul" case – Leaky caldron and I work in pretty different areas of the project. If memory serves, I've personally never come across them in my lines of work (other than RfA-related discussions). I think if it started to really crop up as an issue, I'd be happy to change my name – unfortunately, a dewikisource user has already snagged User:Claudia, but if I had to move away from leeks and cauldrons, something related to my first name is probably where I'd go :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I guess my main concerns are that admins end up generally working in broader areas than regular users (say if you had to do a page deletion on Leaky's areas of the project, or discuss a thread on ANI/AN etc). And that it generally will cause noticeable confusions generally (In Village Pumps or other centralised locations, say. For example, I had to revisit a ton of my assumptions about you because I kept remembering things I noticed from Leaky for over the last N years).

So I guess my (follow up?) question is, under what circumstance (specifically) would you consider changing your username? My personal threshold is already at "This is too confusing right now", but I don't know what your threshold would be. Is this a "Until someone brings it up on a central location" thing or a "If enough people request it", etc? Soni (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from MaxBrowne2

9. When are you going to finish your chess game with User:PaulHammond?

A: Ah, don't mind if I do! Bishop takes c6 – if anyone else wants to jump in, feel free :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from Robert McClenon

10. What experience have you had in resolving or trying to resolve disputes between editors, either article content disputes or conduct disputes?

A: Thanks for the question! Being able to resolve conflict is a super important skill to have in one's personal toolbox, and it's something I've been able to sharpen over time and then find use for at DYK. Cutting through logjam and disagreement definitely goes a long way towards clearing up DYK's backlogs. I remember one time, a nominator and reviewer were going back and forth over a hook the reviewer contended hook was OR: according to the reviewer, the source never mentioned or talked about its subject, but the nominator argued that the connection between the source and the subject was clear. The discussion had started to heat up a bit by the time I got to it; it seemed to me that the nominator had probably misunderstood a word or two in the source, so I brought up the discrepancy and the nominator gracefully agreed that the source was probably talking about something completely different. Issues resolved, the nomination was stamped by a new reviewer and that was that. In general, I find it really useful to find the crux of an issue, refocus on it, and work forwards from there – it helps clear a lot of the tangents and mudslinging that can come up. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from AirshipJungleman29

11. I've recently been working on Tolui, our article about the youngest son of Genghis Khan. It just passed GA, and will arrive at FAC by the end of the day. What in your opinion could you improve/have already improved?

A:

Discussion

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/theleekycauldron
• Requests for adminship/theleekycauldron 2

• 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 her contributions before commenting.

Support

1. I’ve been a fan of Theleekycauldron since she started working at DYK several years ago. The amount of work she’s put in there is pretty impressive and includes multiple improvements to the process. Her input is constructive and clueful, and she shows an enviable temperament when dealing with other editors. I was a nominator for her first RfA, which in the face of some pretty painful opposition she withdrew with grace, unwaveringly continued that grace in the aftermath, and got right back to work. Basically everything we’d hope to see from a disappointed candidate.
   I’ve only become more enthusiastic about her as a candidate in the 20 months since. She’s not just a regular creator of top-notch content but also contributes in techie ways, and the toolset will let her contribute even more usefully in that area. I support this candidacy with zero reservations. Valereee (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
2. As nominator. KevinL (aka L235 · t· c) 17:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
3. I was not active while the first RFA happened, but as the one being quoted in the nom, I am more than ready to see leek enter the admin corp. She is a fine editor and has shown incredible growth, and a willingness to learn; those qualities I believe will carry her far. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
4. Support Of course! :3 F4U (they/it) 17:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
5. Support, has done excellent work at DYK, both with content and building the infrastructure. She should be made an admin so she can do even more work. —Kusma (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
6. (edit conflict) Support Glad to see this candidate run for adminship again. Sheep (talk • he/him) 17:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
7. Support: Has a clue and I think they'd be a net positive as an administrator. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
8. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
9. Duh. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 17:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
10. (edit conflict) Support Very happy to see this RfA :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
11. Support. An intelligent and thorough editor with an excellent track record. Will absolutely make an excellent admin. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
12. Support as co-nominator. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
13. I've came across theleekycauldron before and have always thought she'd be an excellent admin. Support. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
14. Support. Excellent candidate! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
15. Support with pleasure. The candidate showed herself to be mature well beyond what might be assumed from her age at her last RfA, and she's only reinforced that impression since then. The extensive prior scrutiny and highly respected nominators give me confidence that there are no disqualifying demons lurking in the closet. Her answers to the standard questions are good, showing that she has valid interest in the tools, extensive content and non-content contributions, and a collegial attitude. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
16. Support. I see no reason not to give the mop here. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
17. Support Wholeheartedly. I wish we had editors of all ages show the maturity that they display here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
18. Support. As always, leeky is still a fine editor, and would make a good addition to the sysop squad. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 18:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
19. Support Well-explained nominations. Really impressed by her work in many areas. --Victor Trevor (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
20. (ec twice!) Support: I wasn't here to see your first RfA, but I've always had a good impression of Leeky from the times I've seen them help out at DYK. DYK always needs admins and I'm sure Leeky will be excellent in helping out with the admin tasks in both this area and beyond. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 18:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

    Just a note here: I find it so refreshing that you acknowledge your deleted articles on your userpage. Accountability is a good trait for an admin, and being willing to say so openly that you were wrong in these cases is a breath of fresh air. We all have deleted contribs from when we began, but showing growth from them in such a public fashion is a great show of maturity. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 01:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

21. Support. Phenomenal editor who can be trusted with the tools.--Cerebral726 (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
22. Support No complaints here NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 18:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
23. Support. Gonna do fine.—Alalch E. 18:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
24. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 18:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
25. Support. Does great work at Did you know. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
26. I reached out to leek a bit after her previous RfA. I saw an editor with tremendous potential and didn't want her to feel discouraged by my opposition. She was incredibly courteous in response, and gave me guidance for my first few encounters with DYK, where I quickly learned she is without equal among active editors both in her knowledge of the intricacies of the DYK process and her commitment to bringing interesting and engaging information to 5 million daily Main Page readers. Then she did something amazing: She made a content creator of a user-conduct admin. Since getting to know leek, I have written 7 GAs (~4 decileeks), and everything I know about content-writing, I learned from her.
    One of those GAs is Sarah Ashton-Cirillo, which leek coauthored and subsequently advised me on. The article falls into a whopping four contentious topic areas, and I watched leek navigate the attendant difficulties with ease. My previous oppose was based on BLP concerns, and I don't know a better way to show that that concern is gone than to say that we brought a very difficult BLP from redlink to GA together.
    If putting up with my bullshit (and, very wisely, politely refusing my hundred or so offers of an RfA nom) weren't enough, I want to emphasize this: leek has done just about the best job anyone could ask of taking on feedback from a previous RfA. She didn't run off to some quiet noncontroversial corner of the project and tick off boxes. She kept doing what she's good at, just better. She's modernized DYK procedures in several ways and even wrote the DYK sourcing requirement that led to the new GA sourcing requirement. Great content writer, technically adept, and already knows more about the admin area she wants to work in than most admins. It doesn't get better than this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
27. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
28. Strong support as last time. There is no clearer evidence that RfA is broken than that one (and there's stiff competition for that dubious honour). The candidate needs the tools for DYK—or rather, DYK needs the candidate to have tools. An excellent contributor, extremely talented, exceptionally courteous and (this is a joke) challenging to work with. Thank you so much for standing again. — Bilorv (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
29. I supported last time, happy to support again. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
30. Did you know TLC is the best? It's verifiable. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
31. Support per Valereee's and Tamzin's persuasive opinions as well as the excellent nominations. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
32. Strong support She is invaluable in so many ways. She has a deep understanding of process and has the ability to create excellent content. She is helpful, level headed, courteous. I am so glad she decided to run because we need her working as an administrator in DYK ASAP. Lightburst (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
33. Support - Supported the first time, didn't find the opposes convincing then, and haven't seen anything to dissuade me in the meantime. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
34. Support – a clear net positive. – bradv 18:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
35. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 18:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
36. Support, no concerns from me. COI disclosure: we're both vegetables. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
37. Support - no-brainer support, long history of producing good content for the wiki and the noms makes a compelling case. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
38. Support. I'm very impressed that multiple opposers of your last RFA are giving strong, early, and passionate supports in this one. It makes me confident that all issues have been addressed. Great job, enjoy the mop :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
39. Fully and without question. Leeky will be an asset to the encyclopedia with the tools. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
40. We need more like her! - UtherSRG (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
41. Support per nom. She'll do just fine. BorgQueen (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
42. Support as per Tamzin and Novem Linguae above, nothing else to add. Very happy to indicate support this time. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
43. Support thought they were an admin by now Andre🚐 19:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
44. support. my previous interactions with theleekycauldron have been favourable, and nothing in this rfa raises any serious concerns for me. dying (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
45. Support - no concerns, more experience since the last RFA will make her a better admin. GiantSnowman 19:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
46. Support. I have to support this exceptional candidate (and, judging from the constant edit conflicts, so does everyone else!) - Dank (push to talk) 19:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
47. Support I have heard and seen nothing but good things from her. I honestly thought she became an admin a long time ago. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
48. Support After watching the previous RFA, I am so glad TLC kept improving this wiki rather than slinking into a corner or outright disappearing from here.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 19:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
49. Support, easily – Isochrone (T) 19:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
50. Support: I've been hoping to see this, and was contemplating offering a nomination. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
51. Support and blessings on House Cauldron. jengod (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
52. — Trey Maturin™ 19:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
53. Support instant yes. Nothing but positives. Blythwood (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
54. Support I supported in round 1 already and have encouraged Leeky to give RfA another go, hence I'm glad to see this. A strong theme in the oppose faction at the last round was lack of maturity, and whilst I personally was unconcerned about that, I can report that in the intervening time, the candidate has most certainly become more mature. I support this candidate 100% and don't have the slightest niggle; Leeky will make an outstanding addition to the admin team. Schwede66 19:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
55. Support, enthusiastically!! I've been gradually learning how to submit articles to DYK, and now starting to do QPQ reviews, and Theleekycauldron has been a tremendous guide and mentor. With their impressive record as both a content contributor and their quasi-admin work with the DYK system, leeky is clearly an excellent candidate for an adminship. No hesitation in supporting this candidate. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
56. Support I'd been waiting for leeky to run again! I supported last time, so its a no brainer. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
57. Support Never voted before, but as a DYK-participator I see their hard work and technical expertise which is much appreciated. Content creator as well, which is the most important thing for Wikipedia - so strong support from me WatkynBassett (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
58. Support LGTM, though I would’ve liked a better answer to q1. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
59. Support - Well, this is an easy choice. Most concerns from the first RFA seemed to just be age / maturity, and it's been a year and a half since then. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
60. Support due to the overall general need for more admins. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 20:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
61. Support – A hugely valuable editor, who I have seen on many admin talk pages requesting sensible actions—makes sense to give them the ability to take care of it themselves. Great content creation and a clear need for the tools. Aza24 (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
62. Support — I know it's a little cliché, but I really did think they were already one. Good luck! — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 20:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
63. (edit conflict) Support. Valuable and trusted user, especially w/ DYK. Her first RfA was before my time, but I probably would've supported it too. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
64. Support No reason not to. /Julle (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
65. Strong support Excellent candidate; great editor who will be a great admin. Curbon7 (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
66. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
67. supportiest support that's ever supported she's a great editor, and she'll be a great admin :) – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 20:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
68. I have my own reasons to believe that the growth between the first RfA and now identified by the noms and by the candidate herself in Q4 have happened and am very pleased to be able to support this candidate. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
69. Support No need to dwell on this one - easy. And I'm glad to see I supported last time. Johnbod (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
70. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
71. Support Easy decision here. Equineducklings (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
72. Support Last time (though neutral pending some questions) I complained that people opposed on a maturity basis that, had TLC not self-disclosed, we would never have known. Their actual maturity then, but even more so now, is more than adequate. All the other aspects were good then and are better now. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
73. I’ve read through the opposes from last time, but the intervening time seems to have been beneficial to the approach. - SchroCat (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
74. Weak Support I would normally like to see a bit more work in maintenance/patrolling areas from candidates though, but their strong record of content creation and desire to work in areas like DYK where knowledge of content work is required lands me here. — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 20:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
75. Full Support - obviously. Leaky caldron (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

    Glad to see the leaky ca(u)ldrons standing together! ;) Nosebagbear (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

76. Support, precious - as last time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
77. Oppose, Should have been done sooner. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
78. Support Leeky has been like an administrator without tools. Lately we have been hoping for an extra administrator in DYK, and I would be surprised if anybody knows more about that corner of the project than Leeky. In my many interactions with Leeky, she has always been cordial and understanding. Leeky has the temperament to be one of our best administrators. Two . Leeky keeps many of our processes working and has created tools and templates for us to work more efficiently. Leeky has schooled me into promoting hooks at DYK and she encouraged me at all times. She is without ego and is one of the very best editors on the project. I love that she decided to run a second time because we all need her! Bruxton (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
79. Support Legoktm (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
80. Support. I opposed the last time, based on a particular edit comment. I've been working closely with TLC for the past year or so at DYK and have absolutely no reason to believe my objection from RFA-1 is still a concern. RoySmith (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
81. Support Ah yes, my co-conspirator from Template:Did you know nominations/Fuccbois. She's an excellent content creator with an excellent sense of humour. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 20:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
82. No red or yellow flags. Has demonstrated clue and a track record of constructive editing. Happy to Support. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
83. Support: seems like she will be a great asset, and I am reassured by many of the names already on this list. Good luck with the tools. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
84. Support for the second time and hopefully the last. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 21:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
85. Support - Having interacted with her fairly regularly via DYK I am well acquainted with her content, promoting hooks, and not least of all with PSHAW. I am happy to very strongly support her becoming an admin and her answer to Q4 shows self-reflection and growth, important qualities for an admin. - Aoidh (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
86. Support - I was neutral last time. Happy to be able to support now based on an examination of their record since the last RfA and some strong nomination statements and supporting voices above. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
87. Support. Only consideration is that she might be too leaky. SWinxy (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
88. Support - Glad to support this second time around and wish her good luck. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 22:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
89. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
90. Support Leijurv (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
91. Support Great work at DYK, will make a great admin. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
92. Support. I would've supported last time, too. casualdejekyll 22:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
93. Support for a candidate I (weakly) opposed last time. It's time. Miniapolis 22:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
94. Support and a round of applause for a job well done so far. What has impressed me about "Leek" (theleekycauldron) from the get-go, is that over at DYK, they hit the boards running. Leek is constantly implementing new and better ways to facilitate the flow of DYK's processes. — Maile (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
95. Strong Support—Having interacted with leeky several times and seen her in action, I can vouch with certainty that she would be a top fit for the mop. Always civil, highly talented, dedicated, and unafraid to admit mistakes, all with an air of joviality and good cheer. Consider me an enthusiastic endorser. 〜 Festucalex • talk 23:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
96. Strong Support Every time I've come across leeky I've found them to have a good sense of humour, a good sense of reason, and good cents to give. Very happy to support. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
97. Support. I'm upset I didn't get to this sooner. :/ (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
98. Support! I've worked a lot with theleekycauldron in the past few years, and I like to think of her as a bit of an on-wiki friend (even though we don't get to edit together much). Glad to see her back at RFA, she's an excellent editor and a wonderful person! AviationFreak💬 23:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
99. Support per what so many others have said above. Tamzin's account is particularly compelling. A model content creator with a demonstrated capacity to take criticism and grow. Generalrelative (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
100. Support, per everyone else. Theleekycauldron is clearly qualified to have the tools here, and I am certain she will continue doing excellent work at DYK. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 00:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
101. Support Kablammo (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
102. I guess it's time for me to pass the baton ... * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

     They grow up so fast ... Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

103. Support He has learned a lot from his mistakes and problems and I would still trust him. Just a random Wikipedian^(talk) 00:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

     @JrandWP The user is a she. BorgQueen (talk) 11:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

     Sorry, I forget it... Just a random Wikipedian^(talk) 14:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

104. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 00:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
105. Support! Thrilled to add my voice in support of one of my favorite Wikipedians. An amazing content creator who does so much else besides. This is a no-brainer. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 00:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
106. Support Omg! I'm very happy to see leek run. She's an amazing, dedicated editor and she'll make a great admin :D Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 00:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
107. Support 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 00:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
108. Support – per pretty much everyone else. I believe she will be a great wielder of the mop. –FlyingAce^✈hello 01:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
109. Support enthusiastically. Familiar with the candidate's work from DYK and believe she will make an excellent administrator. Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
110. Support -- EN-Jungwon 01:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
111. Support. Glad to see her run again, clearly qualified, has a clue, etc. etc. ULPS (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
112. Support - pretty much per Tamzin. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
113. Support. A deeply competent user for whom I hold the utmost respect. Clear net positive with a demonstrated need for the tools. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
114. Support. Sure, why not? No concerns. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 01:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
115. Finally. Vaticidalprophet 01:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
116. Support After the last RFA I cannot say this could come soon enough. I am surprised it's been that long.

     And my opinion has not changed. Yes, there have been times since then I have thought she's been a little too demanding with my DYK noms, given how many I have, but to be fair I'm the one letting myself feel entitled because of that, that grudge doesn't last and frankly anyone scrolling through T:TDYK can see she's that stringent with every nomination she reviews. The 100+ !votes without any opposes so far is a strong admission that the community talked itself into making a mistake last time ... it would be an even greater repudiation of that RFA if it breaks 200 with no opposes. Daniel Case (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

117. Glad to Support Volten001 ^☎ 02:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
118. ... that I support this request for adminship? Chlod (say hi!) 02:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
119. I supported last time, and with no changes for the worse since, I'll support again. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
120. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
121. Support. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
122. Support. I've been waiting to cast this vote since the last RFA ended prematurely. Glad you're back here. -- asilvering (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
123. Support Partofthemachine (talk) 04:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
124. No reason to oppose. All the concerns from her previous RfA have been addressed. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
125. Support -- Bringingthewood (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
126. Support - ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
127. Support About time! You have more than earned the mop and are among the few editors I can rely on to provide an answer or refer me to someone who can. Thank you for standing, and good luck! ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
128. Support -- I remember interacting with this user and never felt any redflags, definitely a suit for the Mopper! GeraldWL 05:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
129. Support. This looks about the perfect response to an unsuccessful RFA - listen to what the first one said, go back to doing what you do so well, and try again when you've addressed the issues. To do it with such grace and good cheer is a bonus. I'm also moved by comments from those who work closely with theleekycauldron, above. As for the only real objection last time, insufficient maturity, I'm seeing no problems at all now. Maturity can come quickly to a young person (unlike some of us old folk, whose immaturity set in years ago and will never change now ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
130. Support! Tails Wx (they/them) 06:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
131. Stephen 07:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
132. Support Excellent candidate. Doug Weller talk 07:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
133. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
134. ResonantDis_tortion 07:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
135. Support Seems like a skilled and competent editor well deserving of adminship. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
136. Support - I've worked extensively with Leeky at DYK, and her development as a Wikipedian and the amount of work she's put into that project and other areas is exemplary. In particular, I think any maturity issues in the last RFA have been more than overcome now. I had been considering co-nominating myself, but real life got in the way unfortunately, but more than happy to support and good luck Leeky!  — Amakuru (talk) 07:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
137. Support I supported the candidate in January 2022, and the candidacy is indisputably stronger now. Of course I am supporting again. Cullen328 (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
138. Support No concerns. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 08:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
139. Absolutely. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 08:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
140. Support I supported last time, was happy to nominate them any time for a second RfA, and so this is an absolute no-brainer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
141. Support she does lots of the leg work at DYK, and giving her admin rights to promote queues would be sensible. Trustworthy editor. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
142. Support; I recently interacted with the DYK corner of en-wiki for the first time, and I was quite impressed how well-coordinated and put together everything is. Some of the most impactful work that can be done on en-wiki is to change and improve the processes by which it works, but that requires initiative, dedication, and being in touch with the community. All of those are valuable traits in a prospective admin. As others have mentinoed, there's not really anything substantial to be concerned about, either. Thanks for your work, TLC! Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 09:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
143. Obviously. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
144. Support. Even though I would personally prefer to abolish DYK, as long as it exists we need good admins working there. I don't follow it at closely as I used to, but what I have seen since the last RfA (where I opposed because of DYK issues) gives me no reason to continue to oppose, and the above support by Amakuru, one of the best DYK admins in my experience, only reinforces the impression that the issues from the previous RfA no longer apply. Fram (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
145. Support Good luck! --Vacant0 (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
146. EZ support quality candidate. Will be a good fit. El_C 10:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
147. Support without hesitation. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
148. Support editor with a content-contribution focus and an even temperament, which are the most important qualities for an admin. Jack4576 (talk) 10:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
149. Support positive experiences in the DYK arena. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
150. Support. Pabsoluterince (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
151. Support Can certainly vouch for their DYK work. Turini2 (talk) 10:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
152. Support I was genuinely stunned to learn you weren't already an admin - great work across the wiki and very friendly. Good luck! Remagoxer (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
153. Support This cauldron is boiling over with qualifications.  Spintendo  12:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
154. Support Excellent content creation, and I see that many of the prior opposers are now in support. A quick scan of her contributions found no issues. Leeky would make an great admin. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
155. Support Has addressed issues since the last run. Noah^Talk 13:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
156. Support - no issues. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
157. Support North8000 (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
158. Support - Leeky does excellent work at DYK, which the tools will be a big help with. She also has written useful scripts and has demonstrated proficiency in some of the more technical areas of the site. She has both good and featured articles. She tends to be level headed in disputes. I have no concerns about giving her the tools. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
159. Support --BDD (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
160. Support: highly competent editor who has done excellent work at DYK, and also plenty at AfD. Give her the mop. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 16:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
161. Support incredibly thoughtful editor and I think they would have made a fine admin the first RfA and certainly a more fine admin today. They have taken feedback to heart and my interactions/observations as of late have only been cordial. Thank you for volunteering! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
162. Support. I was the first opposer on leek's previous RfA, with concerns about her accountability and breadth of experience. While I don't regret that vote, I was thoroughly impressed with the gracious manner in which she dealt with the outcome of that RfA, and the active response that followed; her actions following failure are very telling and more than alleviate my concerns from last time. Leek, your candidacy is unrecognisable from that of a year ago, and I am very happy to put my name in support. Good luck. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 17:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
163. Support, without doubt. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
164. Support good nom. Draken Bowser (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
165. Support, but I'm disappointed by her user name. I had high hopes when I saw the vegetable based pun name and user photo, but is there obsessive or even moderate levels of Plantipedia editing? NO! I did my usual review of the last 250 edits and found only solid editing without any plants. We need more plant based editors to complete the many, many red-link plant articles. And so we can have jolly arguments about splitting verses lumping. :) MtBotany (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
166. Support — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 17:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
167. Support, noting especially the diligent work behind the scenes at DYK (where admin tools are valuable) and in content creation and improvement. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
168. Support I've seen leekycauldron around a lot and have no doubt she has the knowledge, ability, common sense and wisdom to be an excellent admin. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
169. Support — Sure. Why not? Best, Reading Beans (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
170. Supported last time, and the case is even stronger now. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 19:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
171. Support Absolutely no doubt. Nothing but positive interactions. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
172. Support Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
173. Support - but only if all of my DYK nominations get the picture spot.--NØ 20:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
174. Support No concerns. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 20:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
175. Support per my support on the last one. --Ferien (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
176. +1 Banks Irk (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
177. I admit it, I hate leeks. Really find them awful… But have nothing but respect for the editor! Courcelles (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
178. Support - I thought leeky was an admin way back before her previous RfA, to be honest. Happy to be a part of making that reality happen! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
179. Support Soni (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
180. Support For all the above reasons. Definitely Admin material. GenQuest ^"scribble" 21:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
181. Support. Given all the editors who opposed the previous run but support this one (including one of the noms), it seems like any concerns have been addressed, as attested by Tamzin, RoySmith, et al. Feel like my support here is unnecessary given 👆🏽 all this above, but I did ask a question in the hopes of giving theleekycauldron a platform to talk about improving DYK, so it would be remiss of me not to drop a +s here. Folly Mox (talk) 23:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
182. Support: Happy to have you as an admin :D Heart ^(talk) 23:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
183. Support Seems good to go. XOR'easter (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
184. Strong support One of our most dedicated. Literally the most active person in the DYK project running 1/4 of the main face of the wiki. Nothing but respect. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 00:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
185. Support I think everyone else has probably already said anything I could say here. Hatsune Miku approves. Dawnbails (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
186. Support I'm not a DYK contributor, but she seems pretty qualified. I would be happy to have her as an admin. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 01:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
187. Support per NOBIGDEAL. HouseBlaster^talk 02:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
188. Oppose. Has not promoted 10,000 prep sets yet. Pamzeis (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
189. Support, per NOBIGDEAL, and per my vote on their first RfA. BilledMammal (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
190. Support I said this before, and I am happy to say this again: thoughtful, kind, net positive for the project. Beccaynr (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
191. Support -- Amanda (she/her) 04:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
192. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 04:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
193. Support Would have supported this editor in their first RfA if I didn't miss it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
194. Support - I have no hesitation supporting; they will make a great admin. Esp. admire their work at DYK. Excellent disposition and trustworthy. Netherzone (talk) 05:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
195. Support - Although she is sometimes fixates on her opinion but my interactions with her in the DYK were generally positive and she was extremely helpful. In all honesty, I thought you were an admin already! Good luck and use the tools wisely FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
196. Support Why not? -FASTILY 09:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
197. Support A trusted, well established and experienced editor who has been around a long time. All indicators seem to suggest that this editor will make a great admin.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
198. Support - I'm delighted to see you run for admin, having observed your invaluable work at DYK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
199. Support – As I can expect, she did a great achievement by presenting DYKs and GA. Futhermore, most of her activities on the project space are mostly on the DYKs. ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 11:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
200. Support – Sensible, trustworthy, and useful. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
201. Support About damn time. Leeky is eminently qualified for the mop at this point. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
202. Support seems like she is a great editor that could use the mop. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
203. Support Leekycauldron will make a fine admin. I've no doubt about it. scope_creep^Talk 13:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
204. Has my confidence. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
205. Support- No chance IMO that she'll break the project. Best of luck with the tools.   Aloha27  talk  14:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
206. Support Well done Leeky! GO GO GO. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
207. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
208. Support I appreciate her work in DYK and think she'd be a great admin. -Riley1012 (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
209. Support. Generally I would consider 3 years to be rather on the bubble for the level of minimal experience I would like to see from a prospective admin before assuming the tools. And that was my first impression reading this discussion, before following up with the previous RfA and learning it was largely failed on the basis of an even smaller (approximately 1 year) tenure up to that point. Clearly this user is keen on the mop, and I suspect has spent a lot of time in the intervening period thinking about how to best frame themselves as a sysop. And that's by no means ncesarily a bad thing: sometimes it is trying to emulate a role that we achieve the best understanding and realization of it.
     Meanwhile, in the here and now, I'm satisfied with their answers to questions and have had any concerns about experience further addressed by testimonials from others here, as well as other indications to the candidate's temperament. Even going back to the original RfA, I found TLC's (oh great acorym!) comments and responses to feedback to be unerringly polite, considered, and seemingly sincerely receptive to feedback--and she gave forthright responses in a couple of places where she probably knew it might hurt her "numbers", which always counts for a little something with me at RfA, even when I disagree with the stance.
     All in all, I have no qualms about joining this landslide, despite the "mere" three years of experience here. Clearly a dedicated and industrious contributor and I get no sense of likely problems with advanced permissions. I do want you all to know that I very seriously considered voting Neutral or even Oppose with the reasoning "Because there is only one pronounciation of GIF.", out of a sheer childlike impulse to gleefully kick the hornet's nest to disturb a perfect moment, before striking and swapping in my actual feedback. But then I imagined the faces of two hundred and eight busy, annoyed Wikipedians attached to those hornets, and thought better of it! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

     When I ran for RfA (almost 6 years ago; gasp), 12 months was seen as the de facto minimum, and that had been a substantial increase from historical standards. At the time, we had a CU who had passed RfA about a year or so earlier with 10 months experience. While I know you are in support, it shocks me that 3 years can be seen as a reasonable time period to be active before running for RfA. User:DGG used to say that we usually get editors for around 5 years. In my personal experience that has been largely true (I'm around still, but barely, and my activity began to fall off at that point.) To me, it is a bit ridiculous to expect someone to wait until what would be 60% of their active time on Wikipedia to run for RfA, spend a year learning how to be an admin (it takes about that long) and then have a huge drop in activity in a year or two after.

     Again, I know you're supporting and it isn't entirely fair to use this as the forum for shock on what people think the tenure requirements should be, but it is also worth pointing out that the role of an admin hasn't changed much in 6 years, which was *not* the case between 2011 and 2017. We're in the same stage of the project we were in then, and while there are cultural differences, overall the expectations and role remain the same. Expecting 3 years of activity or seeing it as borderline is a bit much. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

     Well, clearly we are in 'your mileage may vary' territory on this one, but I very much do consider three years to be barely sufficient to present even a baseline understanding of the nuances of just the most foundational policies most commonly relevant to using the mop effectively. It's true that my own contributions over the last fifteen years or so have been much more of a slow burn than the kind of "several years of intense contributions followed by a rapid tapering off" editor you describe, and I have to concede the possibility that it colours my perceptions here, but then neither variety of contributor is exactly a universal. In any event, I do think that the floor needs to be significantly higher than the absolute pro-forma minimum; for my money, 12 months is much more 'ridiculous' as a reasonable 'de facto minimum' than is 36.

     I also do question whether the six year rule of thumb you are operating from rrepresents any sort of reality. In truth, the average tenure of our typical editor is infintesimally shorter, so we're clearly talking about some sort of subset of 'veteran editor', but the problem there is that without some firm metrics for who qualifies for that status, one is just operating from vague intuition and going to be very frequently begging the question when setting thresholds for when this or that should happen in a given wiki career. Further, I think we can also say (with much more confidence) that our average user who ascends to administrator status is someone who stays around for significantly longer than six years. And even the non-mopped average user who contributes heavily to community, administrative and policy spaces that I am familiar with in my time here does as well.

     Lastly, I think it bears reiterating that the entire reason I mentioned that this user was on the lower side of experience I like to see before supporting for the bit was to emphasize that these circumstances triggered a little extra scrutiny for me--and that I was satisfied in the final analysis nevertheless. I think that's a good thing to see in an RfA, and as a candidate in particular, I presume I'd be pretty satisfied to hear it. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

     I was elected to Arbcom before I made it to 3 years of real activity. The secret to being great with policy is a willingness to reread the applicable policy before saying anything. The real trick is knowing where to look for the appropriate policy or guideline and 12-18 months is sufficient to gain that for most editors. 3 years is absurdly too high of a standard and I hope you reconsider. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

     No introduction of tension into the matter intended or desired here folks, but I feel that I had already abundantly demonstrated that this is clearly not an infelxible standard for me, well before anybody said word one about my personal interpretation of where the proper default threshold of experience lays. Clearly the !vote would be very different (and in another section) if it were an inviolable maxim for me. I quite obviously judge each individual candidate on the merits of what they have demonstrated in terms of readiness at the time of the RfA, and the "this is the amount of experience I would ideally like to see" is the starting place for my analysis--not the end. And I don't think I'm likely to be swayed from my perspective from what is essentially a highly subjective and multi-faceted point of perspective under these circumstances. Let's just enjoy the rare treat of the uninamity we have in this instance, and not dig to find points to disagree over even while !voting in the same direction (i.e. finding ourselves still somehow doing the usual RfA thing despite 100% support), I'd like to suggest? :) For what it's worth though, Barkeep, I do agree that the willingness to reexamine consensus and policy language afresh for each individual matter is more important than any purely statistical metric. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

210. Support - No red flags, My only issue is the username (I'm only bringing it up because I actually thought this RFA was for Leaky caldron), Other than that easy support. –Davey2010^Talk 20:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
211. Support - good candidate. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
212. Support I think this user has demonstrated both a clear idea of what they need the tools for and a level of maturity which makes age not an issue. Willbb234 20:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
213. Support is bubbling over for theleekycauldron, the degree of which is now over 212. BBQboffin (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

     What a sad state of affairs that even our jokes are non-metric. RoySmith (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

214. Support No concerns on my part. — Sadko (words are wind) 22:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
215. Support as I return to RFA after how many years. (Planned to see about Miraheze/MW.org stalwart Pppery (talk · contribs) days earlier, but the chance passed me by before I knew it or found time.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

     Miraheze stalwart? I contribute there occasionally but in no way consider myself a stalwart. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 11:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

216. "D'you hear that, Ern? Theleekycaukdron that's in London?"[1] But seriously, strong support—an incredibly valuable Wikipedian. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
217. Support as (1) she's already doing admin-type work and (2) DYK could use knowledgeable admins that can promote hooks to the main page.Rjjiii (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
218. Another Support! Outstanding contributor, excellent responses to all questions. Zsinj^Talk 01:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
219. Answering Q8 without quoting Office Space is proof of temperament and maturity, and the track record of improving other editors, not only improving content, is proof of commitment to the overall project. We can never replace Yoninah, but it's incredibly heartening to see another positive influence working at DYK. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
220. Support I thought she already was an admin. theleekycauldron is well qualified, and it's great she's nominated. Nick-D (talk) 05:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
221. Support The person who loves reading (talk) 05:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
222. Support - To be honest, I thought they already were. --Jack Frost (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
223. Support per last time, when I wrote: "The candidate is very active at DYK and has a need for the tools; they are a great and qualified candidate, despite some minor slip-ups." Leek has only matured since these minor slip-ups. As I believed back in January 2022, and as I still believe now, giving her the tools will be a net benefit to Wikipedia and especially to DYK. – Epicgenius (talk) 07:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
224. Support they'll be fine and have about six times as much tenure than is really needed. Three years indeed, what a load of shite. Nick (talk) 07:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

     I was amused to see the incredulous reaction at Newyorkbrad's RfA to a suggestion that six months might not be long enough. Those were the days... Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

225. Support Theleekycauldron, you've been an awesome person to interact with and talk to. I'm glad to see you here and I'm happy to offer any advice or input that you need. I shake your hand and welcome you to "the ranks." That being said, we're moving closer to taking over the world and causing death and destruction to all, and I'm glad that you're moving forward with our plans. Having the admin bit will allow you to launch the nuclear missile and DESTROY EVERYTHING. Just make sure to let me know when you decide to launch. I try to wake up at 6 AM each day. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
226. Support I don't belive we've had any interactions but I see no reason not to give the mop and they have a valid use for the tools. KylieTastic (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
227. Support I don't remember any specific interactions with them but it's clear they'll use the mop well. SportingFlyer T·C 11:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
228. Support MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
229. Support Has clue. Many. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
230. Support Terasail^[✉️] 12:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
231. Support Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
232. Support I appreciate your work at DYK. - Imcdc Contact 13:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
233. Support, has a clue; has a need -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 15:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
234. Support I see no issues here. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 15:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
235. Boring. Am I on the wrong page? I thought at an RFA we were supposed to beat up on both the candidate and any opposers? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

     I suppose we could resort to badgering supporters, just for a change of pace? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

     How dare you. I'm entitled to my opinion, and to be harassed by one of the nominators is beyond to pale. If you think for one second I'm going to tolerate this, you're mistaken. Notifying you in advance of the pending ArbCom case. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

     I'll just block all the other arbs and decline the case myself. Checkmate. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

     Curses, foiled again! OK, you win. Support. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

     Discussion moved to the talk page. Panini! • 🥪 18:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

236. Support: Net positive. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
237. Support Acquainted with Leeky from DYK. No concerns and we desperately need another admin or two to promote the queues. Some things are time critical. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
238. Support. I was going to stay out of this one, but since it seems to be so close, I might as well support. I've read all of the opposes, as of this time, and I really don't think they said anything. And, per Floquenbeam. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
239. Support without reservation - a good editor who articulates a clear reason for having the tools. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
240. Support it's risky, but I'll take a chance on being wrong on this one. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
241. Support I have seen theleekycauldron around before and have no problem supporting this RfA. Others have adequately summed up my views above, including Oshwah and Schwede66. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
242. Support and good luck to her. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
243. Support Articulate, seems to take criticism in stride, productive editor. Edison (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
244. Support, absolutely. Grateful that its fungi and not leaky. Star Mississippi 01:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
245. Support Elli (talk | contribs) 01:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
246. Support. Great work in multiple areas. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
247. Support- Good candidate — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
248. Support I thought I had done this some days ago, but apparently I forgot to save the edit. Not sure if the RfA really depends on me making a persuasive argument at this point, so I won't bother. Hell yeah jp×g 04:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
249. Support Has good judgment on DYK hooks from what I've seen. Havradim leaf a message 06:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
250. Support Glad to support. I have seen her work and interacted at least a few times, all positive. Great positive demeanor. Otherwise, no need to repeat what has been written accurately and persuasively above. Donner60 (talk) 10:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
251. Support, nothing to worry about here. Does excellent work at DYK where they have demonstrated level-headedness and resilience - Dumelow (talk) 10:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
252. Support. Seems to do good work, has been around for awhile. I've noted an extreme lack of nasty behavior by this editor. :) Jacona (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
253. Strong Support Theleekycauldron does great work. She's very helpful, industrious, and pleasant to work with. In my mind, she's the exact sort of person that should be an admin.--13:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gen. Quon (talk • contribs)
254. Support: DYK is really meticulous stuff and the candidate does great work there. There's plenty of reason to think she'll be a great admin. - Astrophobe (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
255. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
256. per her good humor, BbbRx nom after opposition 4⁴ -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
257. Welcome aboard Girth Summit _(blether) 15:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
258. Pile-on support. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
259. Support, from someone who's seen her at DYK. This is clearly a controversial case and a close run debate, but I hope my support makes the difference. --GRuban (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
260. Support: I was wondering when she'd be up at RfA again. She's done great work for DYK — hell, practically is DYK sometimes. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 17:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
261. Moral support :) GrammarDamner how are things? 18:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
262. Support A really good candidate. Best wishes Josey Wales ^Parley 20:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
263. I still agree with my previous opinion — Wug·a·po·des 21:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
264. Support: an excellent contributor at DYK in all areas, including behind-the-scenes; looking forward to her work on queues and other areas as an admin. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
265. Support. I was also contemplating to stay out of this but since this has become much closer I thought I should make this vote./s VickKiang (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
266. Support slam dunk!   ArcAngel   (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
267. Support. Both competent and kind. gobonobo ^{+ c} 02:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
268. Support. Was weakly in favor the first time; her response and the last year or so has been far more gracious and mature than I would have managed. Thank you for not letting the first round scare you off! Rusalkii (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
269. Support - cannot see any issues here. another for the mop.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
270. Support: for dedication to the project and good relations with others/issues. Thanks for volunteering again! Loopy30 (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
271. Support -- No qualms on my end. -- Dolotta (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
272. Support seems fine based on my memory of seeing the username around and a review for this RFA. Skynxnex (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
273. Support no problems with me DrowssapSMM (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
274. Strongest possible support – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
275. Support Will absolutely be a great admin. JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
276. Support, this seems fine. I only recall good interactions with this editor. BD2412 T 17:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
277. Support Charcoal feather (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
278. Support -- absolutely yes. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
279. Support. Good candidate, has a clue, et cetera et cetera. 〜 Askarion ✉ 18:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
280. Support: very good to see this editor come back! Modussiccandi (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
281. Support. Bridget (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
282. Suport, all good! -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
283. Support, but I wonder how many leeks would a cauldron leak if a cauldron could leak leeks. Ann Teak (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

     Well, an Ann Teak cauldron would leak all the leeks that a cauldron could leak if a cauldron could leak leeks. 😏 Kurtis ^(talk) 10:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

284. Support, as per others. DimensionalFusion (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
285. Pile-on support. A worthy candidate who conducts themselves in a manner befitting the mop's needs. SounderBruce 22:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
286. Support. Tons of great work and no bullying. Cyrobyte (talk • contributions • email) 03:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
287. Support. One of the good guys. Victuallers (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
288. Support. Adding in my vote to the heaping pile. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
289. Support No concerns. – SD0001 (talk) 12:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
290. Support can we make it over 300? It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 14:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
291. Support No issues, a good editor, and id love to contribute this snowball of (well deserved) support. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
292. Support Recognise the name. Don't recall any issues.©Geni (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
293. Support. Candidate has been thoughtful and well-informed whenever I've seen her in discussions, and the detailed supports from lots of users (including some who opposed her previous RfA) further solidifies my confidence that she'd be a strong addition to the admin corps. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
294. Support – I don't cross paths with her often, but the number of !votes in this section indicates she's obviously doing something right. Graham87 15:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
295. A good egg. The Night Watch (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
296. Support I have been an early supporter of this wikipedian and I remember fondly theleekycauldron's child-like enthusiasm and BOLD willingness to risk strange looks (her early archive system, for example, left much to be desired of an admin candidate). Many nice words have been written describing her dependability and industry of late. leek's writing has improved exponentially since her first run, most would agree. I see her as an active volunteer, a reliable human being, and a terrific representative of English Wikipedia. This unusually positive RfA procedure IMHO demonstrates the benefit of being willing to be seen as making a mistake. In this formal process, when she was questioned on a file handling error (question #5), she researched the question. She quickly realized she'd goofed, fixed the error immediately and accounted for herself to the questioner. These are the actions of a mature mind, self-conscious of her own limitations yet willing to be responsive and responsible. If she made errors early in her wiki-career, she has taken wisdom from them. BusterD (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
297. Support – nihil obstat. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
298. Support I usually don't participate in RfA, but since this is so close to 300... why not? I have seen the candidate around the project a fair bit, and it's clear she will work wonders for DYK. —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 17:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

• Pointless oppose so that people can have someone to badger. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Discussion is staying right here. You deserve the shame. Panini! • 🥪 21:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Tamzin already did this, you're late. casualdejekyll 21:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Badger! Badger! Badger! — KylieTastic (talk) 09:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Mushroom, Mushroom. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Snaaaaaaaaaaaaake! Snaaaaaaaaake! Ohhhhh, it's a snaaaaaake! casualdejekyll 19:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Since the original Badgers gif is under a fair use clause here on Wikipedia, pretend I put it in here. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  You've gone and explained the reference! How are people supposed to be confused as to what we're talking about now? casualdejekyll 15:27, 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)

   @BorgQueen: one sec. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

   @BorgQueen: Here: [2]. 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^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

   @Tamzin: 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)

   @Therapyisgood: 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^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|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. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 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^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

   With this information in light, I'd suggest somebody come around and drop an {{rfan|dm}} before this gets out of hand. casualdejekyll 17:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

   (edit conflict)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. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 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)

General comments

• Just noting here for those who may not have noticed: theleekycauldron's pronouns are, according to this, she/her, so please use these. Nythar (💬-🍀) 00:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  This seems to be a fairly common issue. How would folks feel about modifying Template:RfA/readyToSubmit so that it includes a candidate's pronouns after the (talk · contribs) following their username? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'd be in support of that - RFA comments very routinely use third-person pronouns to talk about the subject of the discussion, and while leek is clear that she uses she/her, this is often not the case. It'd be good to have something standardized like this in RFAs for cases where users are not otherwise clear about the pronouns they prefer. AviationFreak💬 04:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Both nominaters refer to "her". As someone who has written quite a few nominations myself I would be surprised if a nominator didn't include a pronoun in their statement, or forgot to agree their statement with the candidate. Of course that leaves self noms, but in those cases it is up to the nominator how they describe themselves. So anyone !voting in an RFA and misgendering someone has missed something in the nomination statements, and probably not looked at the candidate's userpage either. I'm not sure the solution for this is to change the process, rather to just ask people what research they have done on the candidate. Of course there will be votes where people refer to interactions they have had with the candidate in a specific area. But normal RFA !voters who have missed something in the nomination statements, I think others can gently bring that to their attention. ϢereSpielChequers 09:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  At a minimum the adjustment to include any such parameter would necessarily have to involve an optional field. Some editors prefer not to disclose their gender and do not indicate a preferred pronoun for this reason. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Presumably many people use singular they (she and he are also third-person pronouns, fyi) on purpose, because they use it for everyone, or at least everyone who has not directly requested otherwise. I see that fairly commonly, and I am increasingly seeing it given as "best practice". -- asilvering (talk) 04:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Nythar@AviationFreak@WereSpielChequers@Snow Rise@Asilvering, follow-up discussion is at Template talk:RfA#Pronouns for anyone who wants to join in there. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

---

• Just a general observation here - this RfA (assuming it continues its current trajectory) will join the annals alongside Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anarchyte 2 of an example of a Wikipedian doing the absolute right thing following an unsuccessful RfA, in addressing the issues raised and running again some time later. The community is not vindictive, and none of us oppose anyone to be nasty or just for giggles - we're all here for the same reason, we all want each other to succeed, and anyone who runs for adminship is to be applauded. If you take "oppose" !votes as constructive criticism rather than an indictment on your entire character, then everyone benefits. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  This is perhaps not the place for it, but I very much disagree. If it has been six years since a candidate successfully re-ran for RfA within two years of the original, more than a quarter of the age of the website, then this is not because all other candidates are too sensitive and emotional: the comment "try again in a year" is a joke and vilification by opposers is not "constructive criticism". — Bilorv (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  I do think many candidates could run successfully after a year of addressing concerns but decide not to put themselves through it again. It can be pretty ugly even for those who have a successful RfA, and for those who have an unsuccessful one, it can feel like an experience they'd never want to repeat.

  Also, it can be difficult to decide if one has taken enough time between RfAs. Running a second one "too soon" and failing a second time is IMO highly likely to take it off the table forever from the community's point of view. Valereee (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think @Valereee hits the nail on the head. Non-near-unanimous RfAs are unpleasant to watch but they're a hell of a lot worse to live through, and unsuccessful ones presumably worse yet. We don't have a large pile of unsuccessful 2nd RfAs - we just have very few 2nd attempts at all in recent years. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed, when I suggested TLC give it another go, the response was sort of "eh", so I'm glad that she's finally up for giving it another go. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think it really depends on how the first RfA failed. Some issues (e.g. lack of experience) are easily surmountable with time. Others (e.g. temperament issues) not so much. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, I think "try again in a year" would face a lot more success if RfA wasn't so harsh in the first place. Would MB have been an admin now? What about Ifnord? My gut feeling is "yes" in both cases, but RfA demotivated them so much that both of them quit immediately after their RfAs ended. casualdejekyll 15:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed this is an example of good process in action, which should be championed and celebrated.

  I think your comments about site culture are overly flattering though. It leaves a lot to be desired at times. Jack4576 (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  I find it absolutely adorable that we might well (and even correctly) disagree down here, but all agree up there. I have no doubt such a wiki-specific paradox is appreciated by the candidate. Thanks, folks. BusterD (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  All I can say is that5 I am really enjoying being on the other end of the "who gets to be an admin" spectrum from my usual role at ArbCom. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

---

• Soni, you might like to take a look at Wikipedia:Editors who may be confused. Valereee (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  I have, which is partly what brings my concerns up. I've had this situation prop up before (I interact with an editor for a while - I form opinions on them - I later realise that opinion is an amalgamation of two different editors). It's more me-specific, I understand, which is why the question does not change my support (as opposed to being policy, in which case it would). Specifically, I believe WP:SIMILARNAME implies this should have already been taken care of, but given that the original account name didn't get auto-flagged/both editors have already been editing for a few years... It's not necessarily something already well defined by policy.

  I just think it's an inconvenient problem that gets worse the more active the editor is/the more hats they hold. Soni (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Not sure how I feel about using the leverage of RFA to pressure a candidate into changing their username. A good workaround in this case might be to install an admin highlighter script.[1][2] –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm also not sure how I feel about that, and it has happened before. GrammarDamner how are things? 18:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  I am unsure how else I would raise this issue. The notice at top is how I first learnt about Leeky/Leaky being different editors. So it's not really something I could have brought up earlier. I have already explained how this is not changing my vote.

  I just prefer candidates say something clearer, like say ("I am not changing my name") as opposed to something vaguer, hence the follow up. As of now, I'm still unsure if my confusion is something the candidate considers as "if it started to really crop up as an issue".

  As for user scripts, I think they're too much visual clutter for myself. Unless there's a way to custom add colours for 2-3 editors (instead of all admins/all arbs/etc) they're no use to me personally. Soni (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Extrapolating from Novem Linguae's reponse, I think RfA is an unlikely venue for a clear answer to your question. If you're looking to discuss policy (not necessarily something already well defined by policy), that ought to go a broader forum like the Village Pumps or something. theleekycauldron's already said Leaky caldron and I work in pretty different areas...If memory serves, I've personally never come across them. She hasn't encountered this problem and doesn't have enough data to give a useful or meaningful projection as to when it will, for example, harm the project or interfere in her work here. And since this is a RfA centered on her, I can't think of a good way she can solicit other people's experiences to generate that data and the clarity you're asking for. I aim not to criticize, just to explain how the questions come across to me. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  That forming of opinions is huge, which is why changing usernames is a big deal. Usernames help us remember we’ve got a history with that person, and that history and the resulting good will we’ve built between us ease collaboration when we’re annoyed with one another. Yes, there are a lot of us, and sometimes it can be confusing. I've been confused with Valerian and Vaselineeeeeee. Barkeep gets confused for Barkeep49 and gets his pings, which I know for a fact because I’ve done it. That minor temporary confusion over similar usernames seems like a pretty low price to pay for the benefit to collaboration of being able to recognize one another, even if it takes a couple seconds to realize this is theleekycauldron, not Leaky Caldron. Valereee (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Completely valid. I guess I do not have this opposite problem, mentally speaking, hence me bringing up the issue I did actually face. Either way, your argument is logical and the reasoning makes sense. Soni (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Ugh, try being one of the SnowPeople; there's got to be a dozen of us among the "recognizable regulars"! Snowded, GiantSnowMan, SnowFire, Snowflake, Snowolf, KSnow--to name just the ones I can recall seeing! So much cntrl-f'ing. ;) SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  This must be why they call it WP:SNOW. casualdejekyll 16:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  Just on a policy/technical note, WP:SIMILARNAME doesn't bar any kind of username, just acknowleges that the software disallows some (unless manually overridden). Those disallowances are for very close matches, like maybe S0ni would be disallowed. But even Tamzinn was let through; it's a pretty conservative algorithm. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  User:Reaper EternaI was allowed through. It's very conservative because there are a lot of accounts on Wikipedia, and going too broad would create some nasty barriers to legitimate users due to all the accounts with 0 edits. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  User:Edward–Woodrow (with an en–dash instead of a hyphen) was disallowed for my test account. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 20:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Edward-Woodrow: You may get a kick out of [3]. (Yes, we were testing something, not just messing around, promise.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  FWIW, if there ever is an overlap in subject I will ensure that I make any edits clear that I am "Leaky Caldron (NOT THE ADMIN)". Leaky caldron (talk) 09:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  How do I know that you're not leeky? hmmmm? SWinxy (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  • Agreed with @Valereee/@Novem Linguae that changing one's username is a major ask that no experienced editor should feel pressured to do.
    One observation I make is that customized signatures often help editors establish their identity, and that both editors here currently have something close to the default.
    Again, changing one's signature is also completely a personal choice, so I want to emphasize that no one should feel any obligation to do so, and there are arguments both for and against. But if either of you are becoming frustrated at the confusion, adopting a more visually distinctive custom signature might be something that'd help alleviate it at the margins.
    Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk (not SD0001) 14:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
    • I absolutely agree that theleekycauldron should under no circumstances feel pressured to change her signature...but on the off chance that she did see some value in your recommendation, and because she and I seem to share similar colours, I thought I might try to sell the idea a little:

theleekycauldron (she/her)^{"go for clauds!" • DYK what I'm up to?}

theleekycauldron (talk to claudia • contribs) (she/her)

I like the attitude of the first one, but in case Claudia felt the link to the user talk was too ambiguous (or too cheeky for an admin), I created a more conventional example as well. Just ideas, of course! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Clearly she just needs to change her middle name to Veronica, and then rename to "the leeky Claud Ron". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

You know, I've been considering a signature change for a while! I never wanted to be too gaudy, but my favorite font is Courier New, and I've always been partial to green, of course :) So, maybe something like:

theleekycauldron^{[leek a message]} (she/her)

ah, darn. taken. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

No confusion here. Havradim leaf a message 06:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I will just note that theleekycauldron does have a custom signature. It's just not one that involves color formatting. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I Claudia isn't taken, I believe. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, that's good, Ritchie333! Of course, I'll never not be able to imagine leeky as being Derek Jacobi in a wig now, but that's just the price of brilliant wordplay. ;) SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

---

• To acknowledge Floquenbeam's concern about the lack of bloodsport here, anyone jonesing for a fix is welcome to pretend that this is an oppose complaining that the candidate has: a non-prime number of FAs; a COI with the name "Claudia"; no nervous system; too few userboxen; not enough edits to the Help namespace; a clean block log; and an annoying tendency to constantly ask millions of people if they know oddly specific things. Imagine there's a dig at the end about how anyone who disagrees with me is unfit to edit. Badger away! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Excuse me!? My grandmother was no collaborator--how DARE you?? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Now, I must acknowledge the taboo of RfA candidates responding so directly to detractors, Tamzin. But, in the matter of all things, RfA included, when I am the target of such vicious slander, it justifies naught but swift, direct response. And I do find myself supremely disappointed by such defamatory, unjust, and hurtful accusations by someone I considered a close friend. I may have no nervous system, and yet this screed stings like the arrow in the back it is.

  I do have a prime number of FAs, thank you very much. United States congressional delegations from Hawaii is an FL, so I have three, not four :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  *goes perfectly still and quiet, wondering if the mere mention of Hawaiian districts is about to blow the lid off the cauldron, not to put too fine a point on the wording.* SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  This says a lot about society 😔😔 ULPS (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  • To quote Tamzin's own talk page header:  Kinehore. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
  • AND she is leeky. Leeks are a maintenance burden. Just ask my plumber... Where's the Flex Seal when you need it? CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 05:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

    I think you're confusing leeks with leaks. Leeks are a root vegetable that taste like... something. (You can clearly see my experience in eating leeks.) Pamzeis (talk) 06:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

    Leeks are an aromatic. You may be thinking of parsnips. Folly Mox (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

    Not me reading aromatic as "aromantic" and diving down a rabbit hole of aromantic plants. But I wouldn't know anything about leeks or parsnips, because I've never even laid eyes on either. Pamzeis (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

    Now I'm just thinking about the rich and varied love lives of romantic plants - do they give each other bouquets of pollinators? Anyways a leek is an allium, part of the onion family. They look like green onions on steroids and the white part tastes like sweet onion. The green part is generally too tough to eat but it's still got good flavor, so it gets used for stock or to wrap herb bundles. Parsnips are indeed a root vegetable; they're white (yellow/brown on the outside) and look kinda like a fat squat carrot. They have a firmer texture than potatoes and have a slight peppery tang to them. When I was a kid I refused to eat parsnips because I read in a book about Paul Bunyan that if you plowed the first parsnip harvest back into the field, the second harvest would be poison - this isn't true, but hey, I was a kid, and turns out I don't really like parsnips anyways. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 14:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

    Well, this RfA has been surprisingly educational. But the real question is, would a parsnip have a romantic relationship with a leek? Pamzeis (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

    Combining a leak with a parsnip @Pamzeis? - sounds a lot like larsiny to me. Clearly the candidate is out to rob us all! Nosebagbear (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

    Then I !vote to boycott the candidate and CANCEL her. Her reputation will never recover. Pamzeis (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

    Leeks are as good with parsnips as they are with potatoes. There could even be a threesome. Valereee (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

    That's unnatural: a stew is a union between one allium and one root. Gourd told me so. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

    hahahahaha Valereee (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

---

SamX, personally what I do is close my laptop, go get a glass of wine, and see if there's a new episode of Top Chef. Valereee (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee: A perfectly reasonable response. — SamX [talk · contribs] 19:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

So, basically, tlc's expertise in dealing with WP's most contentious issues as an admin, before she's had any experience doing so, is what you need to assess to be able to support or oppose? Valereee (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

No, although I completely understand how it could've come across that way. What I am interested in is how she'd react to unexpected challenges as an administrator. There's no right or wrong answer; I'd have no problem with something along the lines of "I wouldn't be comfortable dealing with that, so I'd leave a note on someone's talk page who I think would be better equipped to deal with the issue" or an answer similar to yours. I suppose I should've explicitly stated this in my question. We're all volunteers here and nobody should ever feel compelled to do things here that they don't feel comfortable doing. If you think my question is too demanding or unreasonable, or just straight up not cool, I'd be happy to strike it. — SamX [talk · contribs] 19:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I've thought a bit more, and I think you're right. I've removed my question. — SamX [talk · contribs] 19:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.