Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/L293D

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.


Final (36/25/4); withdrawn by candidatexenotalk 12:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC); Scheduled to end 11:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


L293D (talk · contribs) – I've been aware of L293D's work for some time, and he's got the magic ingredient I like to see in adminstrators - someone who can write good content and fight vandalism. On the content side, he's got a particular interest in military history and is the primary contributor to the Featured Article 1974 White House helicopter incident, as well as improving over 20 articles to good article status and filing several Did you know nominations. On the maintenance side, he has filed numerous reports at AIV and requested page protection, and he's a regular at WP:AfC/R, responding to many redirect requests.

As he will outline himself, L293D has held off on running for adminship for some time as he came into a few conflicts early in his wiki career. However, over 2019 and 2020, he has in my view worked hard to overcome this and turn things around. I now think he's an ideal all-rounder who will made good use of the tools, and has my full confidence in being able to use them responsibly. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you Ritchie for the kind words. I accept the nomination. I have never edited for pay, and I have three alt accounts: L293D (alt), L293D (AWB), and L293D (AFCRD). I have no connection to the many other blocked accounts starting with "L293D". L293D ( • ) 12:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It’s clear people have valid concerns that I need to work on, so I’m asking to withdraw this nomination. I appreciate the feedback and hope that in the future, the community will decide they’re ready to trust me with the tools. Thanks to everyone who participated, and best wishes to the other candidates. L293D ( • ) 12:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Most of my work is centered around fighting vandalism, and writing good and/or featured content, so I intend to start by patrolling WP:AIV, WP:UAA, and WP:RfPP. I have 263 reports at AIV, and I feel I am ready to block similar vandals myself; likewise, I have requested page protection 159 times, and I think I am prepared to protect pages myself. I have also moved 773 pages, mostly responding to requests on WP:RM/TR; admin tools would help me when I encounter a move-protected page, as I occasionally do. Over time, I will help in other areas as well, but this is where I plan to start.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contribution to Wikipedia, in my opinion, is 1974 White House helicopter incident, because I took it from a Start-class article to Featured pretty much by myself. I have also written 23 Good Articles and successfully nominated 37 articles for DYK. Other than that, I have collaborated on another Featured article, German torpedo boat Albatros, and written 59 articles, although those were often only C-class. On the anti-vandalism side, I have performed approximately 9,500 rollbacks, sometimes with Huggle, but mostly by patrolling the recent changes feed with navigation popups. I have also created around 2,500 redirects requested at WP:AFC/R.
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: Anti-vandalism and content creation are mostly drama-free, but in April 2018, I decided to fix typos on WP:ANI and a dozen other noticeboards using AutoWikiBrowser, and got a 3 hour block to stop the disruption; I made it even worse by getting mad because of a mass rollback that was then performed on my last ~300 edits, instead of being apologetic. Later in August 2018, I mistakenly rolled back an edit by Primefac on one of his subpages, and TheSandDoctor removed my rollback. Again, there was disagreement on how to proceed, but my rollback was re-instated a couple days later by a consensus of five admins. I think I've learned from both of these incidents and similar ones, and I don't recall any incidents like this in 2019 or later.

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.

Additional question from Dolotta
4. What area or areas of the English Wikipedia are you the weakest?
A: The ones that come to my mind are noticeboards (ANI, AN3, DRN, Village pump), political stuff, and copyright-related stuff. - L293D
@L293D: Can you clarify what you mean by political stuff? -- Dolotta (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any discussion whose subject is related to US politics, such as politicians, political controversies, political movements, and so on. - L293D
Additional questions from Barkeep49
5. You discuss the troubles you had in 2018. That's obviously a long time ago in wiki-years. Can you point to some feedback you received where you didn't get defensive and/or a discussion which was tense/heated where you kept your cool (especially if you think you helped to lower its temperature). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: I don't go on noticeboards if I can avoid it, so pretty much all tense/heated discussions I have taken part in have unfortunately been about me. I've had people post rude comments and I've generally replied in a normal way. As for me lowering the temperature, I think the best diff I have to show is my apology to Drmies. -L293D
6. I'd had something in the back of my mind that hadn't been sitting right around your work and I think I have found what it was. You accepted Kung-Flu at AfC which was later deleted (and has been subsequently recreated as a redirect). I am all about marginal things at AfC being accepted so I am less troubled that it was deleted than creating a disambiguation page that was described, fairly in my opinion, in the AfD nomination as Promotion of racism, xenophobia and stereotype. This actually ties into my previous question as well as your response wasn't great (even when you backed down to Drmies it was with a "Sorry if I offended you" comment rather than a re-examination of the action in the first place). Can you say more about your thinking about that siutation now and what, if anything, you've learned from it that would impact how you'd approach work as an admin? Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: I was expecting this question. As you said, I had re-created this page as a redirect to Covid-19 upon request by someone at AfC/R. It was nominated for deletion for "promotion of racism, xenophobia, and stereotype". After I was pinged by someone telling me I should never have created this "racist garbage", I voted Neutral and explained that no page should be deleted for being racist, citing NOTCENSORED and the fact that whole articles exist that have way more offensive titles, such as the n-word. Drmies then replied I really, really wish that y'all would get as much of a kick out of dropping disgusting racist terms for white people as you do for non-white people, and Don't y'all think that this is just some white privilege surfacing? I replied by apologizing for having spelled out the n-word in my original !vote, to which Praxidicae replied Use some common sense, if you've got any. I later apologized again on Drmies' talk page. What I've learned from this situation is that when commenting on politically charged subjects, people will often mischaracterize your arguments and rarely assume good faith, which means that I will have to be much more careful in the future if taking part in this kind of discussion. - L293D
I will add that the only reason that I did not offer policy-based arguments is that I wasn't voting keep in the first place. I was trying to explain how I thought the oppose !votes were wrong. -L293D
A: I’m sorry, I was so anxious over this whole thing that I didn’t think about what I was saying. I apologize; I should have given this more thought instead of trying to answer as quickly as possible. If you’ll give me a second chance, I’d like to give this more thought.
Here’s what I wish I’d responded: "I wish I had made clearer what my reasoning was. Just because I know I’m editing in good faith doesn’t mean people shouldn’t point out when they think I’m in the wrong; it doesn’t mean they’ve mischaracterized me. It just means I need to explain better." - L293D


Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

  1. Support as nominator Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support seems to have a need for the tools, qualified user, competent actions. Has learned from his past mistakes, always a good quality. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC) I need to rethink my !vote, mainly based on the answer to Q6. Not sure where I'll end up. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. * Pppery * it has begun... 12:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support. Haven't encountered the candidate myself, but I trust the nominator and the candidate's answers clearly indicate both a need for the tools and an awareness of how to use them. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 12:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC) Regretfully withdrawing my vote per subsequent discussion regarding the nominee's response to Q6. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support nominator explained everything, I wish him all the best in his new role. Mikola22 (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support The candidate has has been a big net positive on the project, showed that they can learn from past issues and justified the need for tools. Roller26 (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. support been impressed with the work for a while. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support. I've seen the nominated floating about many a time, never had an issue with them or their contribs. No reason to oppose. Nightfury 13:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support Astonishingly high Afd stats, obviously a fine judge of quality. I don't see anything else that would preclude the editor for being an admin. Good candidate. scope_creepTalk 14:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Strong Support No hesitation. Great candidate. Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 14:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Why not? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support. The candidate seems trustworthy, being an experienced content creator with a need for the tools and good deletion stats. I am also impressed that he is able to acknowledge his past mistakes, which shows self-improvement. epicgenius (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support — Generally a net positive and knows what they are doing. No real reason not to support + the project really needs more admins attending to general backlogs requiring admin attention. Celestina007 14:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Support - seen them around the place over the years. Can't recall a reason to not trust them. Anarchyte (talkwork) 15:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support has a clear need for the tools. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 17:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Support - thought he was already was an admin. Atsme Talk 📧 18:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 18:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Support So Little Admins, So Much To Do - TNT 18:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support Looks fine to me. Chetsford (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Support Seems well qualified. Herbfur (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Support - No concerns. I approve of the way they handled the Q6 issue and don't think they had/have anything to apologize for. In fact, their calm handling of it is one reason I think they'd make a good admin. Lev!vich 20:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Weak Support. Good work overall and a net positive. Especially impressed by their experience in anti-vandalism work and their solid afd track record. Regarding the Kung-flu AFD, the candidate has actually handled the situation fairly well. One can of course argue that the candidate shouldn’t have used the words they used to illustrate their point. But to be fair to them, the terms were clearly not uttered with the slightest intent to cause any offense. Further, when the candidate was confronted by other users offended by their language, they clarified and apologized for their remarks, showing composure and assuming good faith all the way. This all inspired confidence in his ability to resolve disputes as an admin. Having said all this though, this is a weak support because (1) the way they answered Q6, especially the part about others mischaracterize[ing] [their] arguments and rarely assume good faith, probably isn’t what the questioner expects when they ask the candidate what they themselves learnt from the situation, and (2) I have not had the chance to actually look at the DAB page approved by the candidate in AfC before it was deleted. If the page was really a blatant Promotion of racism, xenophobia and stereotype, as suggested in Q6 and by some of the opposing votes below, this would raise further questions as to the candidate’s judgment to the extent that I would need to reconsider whether a support vote remains appropriate. --Dps04 (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Strong support – Great content creator that can be trusted with the tools. I want to add on the subject of the n-word (and I find it offensive to our principles that I have to censor myself in saying this and I do it as a courtesy to L293D, to not derail his RfA). As a black person who grew up in the US, I do not in any way consider the editor's use of the term offensive. There is a major difference between calling another user "a n*****" and saying "we have an entire article on n*****" (quote censored). If we cannot freely and openly discuss a subject without fear, how can we expect to cover the world without bias and without censorship. The term "**** Flu" is notable and there is nothing wrong with L293D accepting it at AfC. If I had known about the AfD, I would have loudly and strongly advocated for keeping it. IMO, redirecting it was the wrong decision. A lot of ink has been spilled on the subject, enough to clearly show that it passes GNG. Maybe it should be a section in a larger article, but the fact that the word is barely covered in List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic is an indication that we have failed to give it its due weight. What is offensive is such censorship. We need to stop being so f***ing sensitive. There is another word that should not be censored. Because it is a f***ing great word for indicating emphasis. If a user tells you to "go f*** yourself", block them immediately. If they say, that is "f***ing hilarious" or "F***" needs to be promoted to FA, leave that user the damn alone and do not CENSOR them. Again, I hate that I had to censor myself. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Coffeeandcrumbs, just a note here, Kung Flu was a disambiguation page, not an article. Notability wasn't the question at hand, but rather its usefulness and appropriateness as a navigation tool. signed, Rosguill talk 22:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It should have been turned into an article then. I do not have the tools so I cannot see what it said. An alternative to deletion should have been found. Deleting it was the wrong decision. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Continuing discussion at the talk page. signed, Rosguill talk 22:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support A too-fast answer in a stressful situation that is soon corrected doesn't bother me. This is an editor who is in 99.9% of cases very reasonable and willing to admit/accept when they aren't in the right. A high-stress question in the first couple hours of RfA can rattle anyone. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. —valereee (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support no concerns. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Support Solid editor with a long record of contributions to the project. The Kung Flu event represents an unfortunate lapse in judgement. And if there were evidence of that being part of a pattern of poor judgement, I'd have to hesitate in my support. But I'm not seeing that. We need to remember that we are not canonizing anybody or electing a pope. We are discussing whether or not to hand a few extra tools to an editor with the expectation they will be used to improve an online encyclopedia. That's it. The only RfA candidates who don't have an "Oh bleep!" event somewhere in their record are the ones who avoid anything potentially controversial. Infallibility is not a reasonable criteria. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support. The candidate has great activity logs, and is active in numerous administrative areas. The candidate's comments in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kung-Flu are not of the best quality, but they are not bad either, especially in a heated, polemic subject. You also managed to keep calm and discuss with people that were actively trying to make you catch the bait. Finally, even if you were wrong in that incident (I don't think you were), it would be a single incident, and a very small one compared to your contributions. Best, Walwal20 talkcontribs 01:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Support. I think this editor would make a good admin. --Bduke (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Support. This is going to be a tough grind and the opposes over question 6 do carry a lot of weight. I find myself here because while I agree the responses highlighted where not ideal, they were not terrible either. If there was a history of poor judgement and similar comments this would be easy, but a one off incidence should not (in my opinion) be enough to sink a RFA. AIRcorn (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Support — an interest and track record on AIV, RPP, UAA which they intend on continuing with the mop should that be granted. I'm not overly fussed with their AfD comment -- they clearly weren't intending on being offensive, and perhaps their real error in this instance was invoking the other crap argument. Hindsight being what it is, I'm sure they would have worded things differently. @L293D: I wish you all the best, —MelbourneStartalk 07:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Support - I've seen too many RFAs fail because of one recent blemish, with the baying hounds ripping the candidate apart rather than looking at the big picture. I hope this doesn't go the same way. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 08:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Support meets my RFA criteria. Coffeeandcrumbs said what I think about the whole Q6 thing better than I could. Sadly this RFA is probably going to fail over it. IffyChat -- 09:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Support One instance where a RfD isn't handled ideally shouldn't lead to a rejection of an otherwise good admin given that Wikipedia needs more admins. ChristianKl❫ 09:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Support. Unfortunately, I think I see which way this RFA is probably heading but I still want to comment here. The candidate has a strong content creation record with a good record of contributions at AIV and RPP as well. The way he handled Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kung-Flu situation was certainly suboptimal but not terrible, and I feel that we are dealing with some over-reaction here on the part of the opposers. We should not try to crucify well meaning and goood faith editors who make a misstep, even a significant misstep, in dealing with a page on a racially or ethnically sensitive topic and make such pages into landmines of some sort. L293D's intentions in that episode were constructive and his instincts were ultimately, I believe, correct as well. The topic did become unquestinably notable, especially after Trump started using the term and the discussion in the U.S. went national. (By the way, there's a page in Wiktionary, [Kung Flu], that has existed there since March 19, apparently with no controversy). It's pretty clear, at least to me, that Wikipedia by now needs an article about the topic too, but none still exists. I think in part incodents like that AfD, and now this RfA, make the editors ever more skiddish to even attempt to write articles about these kinds of topics, even when the subjects become clearly notable, and that's really unfortunate. In any case, I think this one episode should not overshadow the candidate's strong record of contributions on Wikipedia. Nsk92 (talk) 09:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Support I remember him for anti-vandalism work, as well as content creation (I still don't think that matters for RfA's) and can be trusted. SemiHypercube 11:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Oppose per answer to Q6. The issue isn't that other people mischaracterized your arguments and didn't assume good faith, it's that you communicated extremely poorly. Using some of the most offensive words in the English language in order to justify your argument that other offensive terms are okay is not an effective dispute-resolution method. It does nothing to make your point, and only adds noise to an otherwise productive discussion. The solution to this isn't just to be more careful, as you suggest in your answer. Rather, the solution is to make arguments based on policy. For example, you could have argued that "Kung-Flu" is a notable term as there are sources written about it, rather than just argue that other articles on racist terms exist (which, incidentally, have sources written about them). I am disappointed to have to explain this here, as I thought that was just a one-off anomaly from a generally wise editor, but seeing that you have otherwise avoided politically-charged conversations leads me to think you need some more experience in these sorts of areas, and in dispute resolution in general, before you can be an effective administrator. – bradv🍁 18:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose, regretfully, for broadly the same reasons as Bradv. The answer to Q6 is disquieting, particularly the last sentence "What I've learned from this situation is that when commenting on politically charged subjects, people will often mischaracterize your arguments and rarely assume good faith, which means that I will have to be much more careful in the future if taking part in this kind of discussion.". The candidate's conduct, both in accepting "Kung-Flu" as a dab and in their comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kung-Flu (which I would not be comfortable quoting), was quite poor, but it could've been a good opportunity to demonstrate reflection and a resolve to improve. Those comments at AfD may have ignited much broader problems if the candidate was an administrator, and especially if the candidate was acting in an administrative capacity, and the candidate hasn't shown, through words or actions, that similar lapses in judgment will not recur. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose, regretfully, along the same lines as the above. I don't doubt that he's sincere about apologizing, but the AfD discussion in question suggests a lack of understanding of the difference between analyzing a slur in an encyclopedic manner and effectively endorsing its use in Wikipedia voice, as the dab page did. A stated aversion to controversial topics and noticeboards and a vague commitment to being more careful aren't enough to convince me that he'll be able to better handle similar situations in the future. signed, Rosguill talk 19:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support Being open about the conflicts they had early on, then showing how they improved and learned from them to me is a big plus. It's almost a bonus in that they know the right way to handle a conflict from experience.Oppose And then I saw the answer to Q6. That one just left a very poor taste in my mouth. It pretty much took what I said in my support, and made it look false. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose based on answer to number 5 - we actually need admins to go on noticeboards to protect content creators. Based on the candidates answer they will avoid the noticeboard areas. I am also concerned about temperament issues. The exchanges on this are not what we need from an administrator. Finally the communication on that AfD allow me to guess the candidate's political leanings, and I am afraid that they will not be a neutral arbiter on the project. I have t oppose for those reasons. Lightburst (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose with regret based on answer to questions 5 and 6 (and the history behind them). AugusteBlanqui (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oppose I feel bad ending up here. But Q6 was something they said they were expecting. And yet rather than have an excellent answer ready they had to strike their first attempt and try again. I think L293D could probably uncontroversially and productively use the admin toolset 99% of the time. Being an admin is pretty great 99% of the time. However, in that 1% things get hard and we need administrators who are ready to handle those hard conversations with aplomb and skill. Unfortunately for L293D, I think that 1% could turn into enough of a thing that their having the toolset overall is not a positive for the project as they simply don't have a lot of experience in hard situations and what experience they have is not confidence inspiring. I really am sorry to be here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose I will keep this brief since I am in general agreement with the substance of the other comments in opposition. I read the Kung-Flu AfD at the time and just read it again. I cannot support. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oppose Concerns with judgment. I'm not impressed by the original answer to Q6 and the subsequent addendum does nothing to inspire confidence. I could go on, but others above have essentially summarized my thoughts. -FASTILY 23:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Oppose for the reasons stated by Bradv. I think having good communication skills is a key expectation for administrators on a diverse project, and regrettably, I feel that this is where the candidate falls short. Mz7 (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Oppose due to the communication issues highlighted above. NoahTalk 01:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Strong oppose as Cullen said, I'll keep it brief but Brad and Kevin nailed it. I cannot in good conscience support this candidate at this time and I feel that their recent err shows a remarkable lack of good judgement. Praxidicae (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Oppose per Bradv. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Oppose I came to this expecting to support. Having good content creators is important. That said, regardless of intent, there are better ways of communicating than using ethnic slurs in a debate. I believe the AfD is too raw to justify support at this time. --Enos733 (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Oppose This global project is already unwelcoming to editors for a variety of reasons, and we don't need to add more. I agree with Rosguill's assessment. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 06:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Oppose. Creation of [1], and defending "Kung-Flu" [2], and the response to a question about it [3], and then trying to wriggle out of that reply [4] demonstrate someone who lacks the judgment and maturity and experience to be an administrator on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 06:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Oppose. I was hoping to support, but I can't after the Q6 thing. I do note the comment "I’m sorry, I was so anxious over this whole thing that I didn’t think about what I was saying", but that was after the initial answer started with "I was expecting this question". If you don't think about what you were saying in answer to a question you were expecting, then I can't support, sorry. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Oppose. This is my first Oppose vote at RfA - but Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kung-Flu convinces me that this candidate's judgement can't be trusted. Maproom (talk) 08:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Oppose as per Mz7, Cullen328, Bradv. The creation at AfC was not as worrisome as the lack of awareness in using racial epithets in full at the AfD. It has to make folks question whether the communications skills and judgment are a fit for adminship. For now, it does not seem appropriate but reapplying at a later time would not be out of the question. -- Fuzheado | Talk 08:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Expected to support, but here basically per Barkeep49. What I've learned from this situation is that when commenting on politically charged subjects, people will often mischaracterize your arguments and rarely assume good faith as an initial response (to an expected question) is hard to square. ~ Amory (utc) 10:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Oppose Poor judgement, which is number one requirement of an admin. Nigej (talk) 10:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Oppose per the answer to Q6, sorry but the incredibly poor judgement and lack of respect for difficult racial issues shown in the answer to that question show that this candidate does not have the communication skills nor judgment to be trusted with the tools. I really don't think the addendum to Q6 really helps at all, to be honest. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Oppose Reading the comments especially to Q6, I feel like changing your answer seems to be a bad omen as you weren't confindent about the answer that you gave. HawkAussie (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Oppose per the answers to Q5 and Q6. RfC is stressful and I can understand expressing yourself poorly in those circumstances, but... going from saying people will often mischaracterize your arguments to it doesn’t mean they’ve mischaracterized me in the span of three hours comes off as disingenuous back-pedalling, not clarifying a badly-phrases first response; and the idea that people are saying you are wrong must mean you need to explain yourself better is just another form of defensiveness. You could just be wrong. – Joe (talk) 11:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Oppose Given their answer(s) to Q6, I really don't think they are ready to be an admin. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. This is a first for me because I generally think that Neutral !votes are not very useful but this is the only place I can honestly find myself. I really, really wanted to place myself in "Support" because I've seen L293D doing a lot of good content work and I've enjoyed many articles they've written. That said, the answer to Q6 raises many of the same issues for me that it did for bradv and Kevin, especially the part about people will often mischaracterize your arguments and rarely assume good faith. I do not think it is fair to oppose based on one question and one underlying incident, however, so I wind up down here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Largely agree with Eggishorn. The Q6 incidents (both the one mentioned in Q6 and the one currently happening at Q6) raise serious concerns about clue and the ability to navigate situations related to the fact that Wikipedia is in the real world. On the other hand, their work in maintaining the encyclopedia is generally good, and in that sense I think there is a non-negligible benefit to granting the tools. The central question for me is whether the "soft skills" issue will lead to problems that outweigh the benefits of granting, and I don't think I've figured it out yet. The candidate seems to be taking time to rethink A6, so I'll wait to see how that pans out too. Wug·a·po·des 21:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Agreeing with the two previous neutral !votes. The AfC nomination was a mistake; the first AfD comment was reasonable in terms of policy but lacked deftness in how it was put together. I think L293D has the makings of a good admin, but needs to work on "antennae for trouble" skills a bit before I can support. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. In line with the above. Otherwise they seem well suited, and I can actually see what they were going for, but they made their case in this minefield area lacking tact and well-structured reasoning. The rather clunky answer to Q6 backs that up, which as an open-book test and an anticipated question is somewhat less acceptable than a mere lack of tact/polish (not an inherent obligation for candidates). I don't think the failing is egregious, and I'm certainly not concerned that L293D is xenophobic from that AfD/C. So notwithstanding anything else, neutral it is. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
General comments[edit]
  • Not sure where to put this, as it's not really an RfA question, but I am immediately struck by the fact that L293D has a signature that is exactly the same as another user's (7&6=thirteen). Co-incidence appears infeasible (same formatting, same colours, and a shared telephone symbol); so I'm left wondering whether the user's are related or whether one just copied the signature style of the other (or of a third editor). Mr rnddude (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I copied 7&6=thirteen's signature because I thought it was extremely cool and I couldn't code one myself at the time, as I had only been here for two months. I've been using it since February 2018. L293D ( • ) 13:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Just a random thought: I have always gotten confused between the candidate and L235 (talk · contribs), and to a lesser extent with (noping) SD0001 and (noping) Dl2000. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.