🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_elections/December_2025/Discussion_phase
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrator elections/December 2025/Discussion phase

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Current status

May 2026 →


Please purge this page frequently so that you see the latest information from the candidate subpages.

Please keep candidate questions short and polite. Complex questions may be a better fit for the discussion section.

The following users are candidates in the December 2025 administrator election. The discussion phase will be open from 4 December 2025 00:00 UTC until 8 December 2025, 23:59 UTC.

All candidates

December 2025 administrator election candidates
Candidate Candidacy subpage
Bunnypranav (talk · contribs · count · logs)
Epicgenius (talk · contribs · count · logs)
Left guide (talk · contribs · count · logs)
LEvalyn (talk · contribs · count · logs)
MPGuy2824 (talk · contribs · count · logs)
The4lines (talk · contribs · count · logs)
UtherSRG (talk · contribs · count · logs)
Yue (talk · contribs · count · logs)

Search for unlisted candidate subpages

Withdrawn

[edit]
Withdrawn December 2025 administrator election candidates
Candidate Candidacy subpage
None currently

Recent changes to candidate pages

Recent changes to the candidate subpages


Bunnypranav

[edit]

Nomination

[edit]

Bunnypranav (talk · contribs) – Hi folks, it is my pleasure to nominate Bunnypranav for adminship in this AELECT cycle. Bunny’s contributions exemplify the spirit of a true wikignome; they quietly perform the essential, behind-the-scenes work that keeps the encyclopedia and the broader Wikimedia ecosystem running smoothly. My first interaction with them was as part of implementing technical changes to the PageTriage extension, where they contributed fixes to common issues encountered during page tagging (for example, adding the ability to tag a page as G15). Since then, I’ve seen them take on changes as part of the site requests process on Phabricator, which often requires folks to stay up at odd hours at night to deploy changes on production wikis, in addition to knowledge of the technical configurations used on Wikimedia and a good eye for consensus. They’ve also contributed fixes to MediaWiki core to a variety of annoying bugs related to the Watchlist expiry feature (like the inability to select an expiry when moving a page) and helped make messages easier for non-technical editors to parse. All through this, my impression of them as a capable technical editor has only grown.

On the English Wikipedia side of things, I have seen them grow, starting with AFC and NPP work, running bots and even recently promoting 2 DYKs and a GA, Shaktikanta Das, an article in the Indian topic area, that requires a good understanding of the rather nuanced world of paid articles in Indian news reporting alongside navigating a landmine of DUE problems as a result of the high-profile nature of the person’s job. Their recent focus on helping out CFDs, as HouseBlaster notes below, makes them a perfect match for Wikipedia’s current need for more admins willing to help with the backlog of backroom tasks. I have no doubt that Bunnypranav will make a capable (int)-admin and will be an asset to the community. – Sohom (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

[edit]

I am thrilled to recommend Bunny for the mop. In his jam-packed time on the project, Bunny has come to be an indispensable part of the team working on taming the Sisyphean backlog at categories for discussion. Regularly closing dozens of discussions a day, he is currently the primary closer at that venue and has accumulated a large portfolio of clueful, complex non-admin closures. The CFD team really needs all the help we can get, and with a mop Bunny can directly implement his own closures (and help with implementing non-admin closures!). Beyond CFD, and in addition to the excellent work Sohom mentions above, Bunny is a volunteer newcomer mentor, helping answer questions and calmly guiding people through the challenge that is contributing to Wikipedia for the first time. He does similar work at the volunteer response team with the same exemplary thought and care that he demonstrates in his on-wiki interactions. In my interactions with Bunny, he is unfailingly polite and able to carefully articulate his viewpoint. He is not afraid to change his mind; he is also not afraid to stick to his guns when the situation calls for it. All of these are excellent qualities to have in an administrator, and Bunny has my enthusiastic endorsement in this election :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with sincere thanks to Sohom and HouseBlaster. :) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose whether you have ever edited Wikipedia for pay: I have never edited for pay. My only other accounts are BunnypranavClone (talk · contribs) and BunnysBot (talk · contribs) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[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. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: I wish to assist in reducing the chronic backlogs in a couple of specific areas. Most of my admin work would be in closing and listing discussions at categories for discussion, which has very few admins active there. Having the tools is particularly helpful at CfD because a number of routine post-close steps are significantly more efficient for admins. Non-admins have to route everything through WT:CFDW, which adds extra coordination and slows the processing of even straightforward unanimous discussions by several days. With the bit, I directly edit WP:CFDW, helping keep the workflow moving without bottlenecks. It also allows me to implement cases which require a mix of bot assisted actions and manual admin action, like speedy deletion and moving a category page before the bot shifts around pages, as well as handling the associated cleanup work, such as checking incoming links and removing completed entries from WP:CFDW. I do not plan to do any other XfD closes.
Beyond CfD, I would love to be able to assist in the more technical areas of adminship, like fully protected edit requests in the MediaWiki namespace. I have made a fair share of MediaWiki namespace edit requests, and I am also interested in working on adminbots to help automate what are often repetitive maintenance tasks for admins. One such task is removing completed listings from the working page of CfD after checking for backlinks which is a routine chore that currently places a recurring burden on only a handful of administrators. Another chronic admin backlog is permissions requests. Continuing my work on the backend maintenance areas of Wikipedia, I would like to help out other users who wish to do the same, by granting them extended permissions like page mover, AWB, and AfC. I have no intentions to grant permission in areas I am not well-versed with, like autopatrolled.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have been involved in Wikipedia's maintenance work, more or less, since I started editing. I am currently one of the primary closers of CfDs. This includes everything from straightforward, unanimous discussions to complex bundled nominations requiring manual implementation Some of them require a mix of bot assisted actions and manual admin action, like speedy deletion and moving a category page before the bot shifts around pages; these are the times where non-admin closures become tougher to implement.
As part of other maintenance work, I regularly fulfill edit-requests, close RMs, and action on WP:RM/TR requests. I run a bot (User:BunnysBot) that helps fix CW Error #61 (reference before punctuation) and CW Error #03: (missing reference list), in addition to other non-cosmetic CW errors. It has also done several runs on WikiProject tagging for pages a couple times. Content-wise, I have helped promote Shaktikanta Das to GA-status and successfully nominated 2 DYKs.
I have also contributed to the technical world of Wikimedia. I have fulfilled various feature requests for PageTriage extension (software behind NPP), Wikipedia Android App, and MediaWiki Core, along with many site configuration changes. I added the ability to choose a watchlist expiry when deleting or moving a page, similar to the dropdown shown when editing a page. In PageTriage, I have worked on features and bugs involving reviewing pages sent to WP:RfD (T382996) and automatically blanking pages tagged for speedy deletion G10: Attack pages (T381228). While not truly technical, I have requested many changes in the MediaWiki namespace by modifying the system-messages so that it can be easily understood by a non-technical user. For example, I have authored the current version of the page explaining multi-factor authentication. Beyond the English Wikipedia, I am an administrator on Wikifunctions, Wikimedia’s newest sibling project focused on programming and translation using Wikidata data, and a volunteer response team agent on the info-en queue.
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: My first step in any type of conflict is to assume good faith and try to resolve the issue through clear, civil discussion on the respective talk pages. I always stop reverting and start discussing with the people involved. I always try my best to follow WP:1RR in all of my actions, even if that restriction is not placed on the page. An example of a content dispute that comes to mind is Talk:Gilgit-Baltistan § India WikiLink in lead section, where I disagreed with another editor on how MOS:OVERLINK applies to country names in a politically sensitive context. When the disagreement persisted, we asked for a Third Opinion, which supported adding the link for consistency. That resolved the issue without further conflict.
When any objection is raised regarding my CfD closures, I try my best to respond promptly, explaining my closure until a point of mutual understanding (which sometimes includes modifying my close). Sometimes I just clarify my close, occasionally our discussion results in a follow-up nomination, and other times I am persuaded to modify my closure.


You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions are disallowed, but you are allowed to ask follow-up questions related to previous questions. Make sure to use level-four section headers, not boldface.

Optional question from Extraordinary Writ

[edit]
4. Could you point me to a closure or two that shows how you evaluate consensus in unclear cases? (Intentionally leaving that open-ended, but maybe a closure where you reached a surprising outcome, went against the numbers, and/or had to give a detailed explanation of how you weighed the !votes.)
A:

Optional question from Conyo14

[edit]
5. Why did you choose to go through Admin elections instead of RfA?
A: I find the admin elections less stressful, especially due to the presence of other candidates running with me. Instead of feeling like a high-stakes individual examination, this is a part of a broader community discussion about several prospective admins, which is a far better way to seek the tools.

Optional question from Fade258

[edit]
6. Which admin action do you feel is the most sensitive and why?
A: "Sensitive" can mean very different things depending on how one interprets the scope of admin work, so I can’t state a single action that sits at the top. If we're looking at the technical abilities of administrators, blocks are certainly among the most sensitive. They can have an immediate and far-reaching impact on an editor’s ability to participate as well alter the course of a discussion the editor may have participated in or have been the subject of.
Keeping aside technical abilities, closing complex and contentious discussions at venues like ANI is another good example. These closures can significantly shape community norms, resolve disputes, and set precedents, so getting them right is necessary and requires a solid understanding of consensus and existing policy.

Optional questions from aesurias

[edit]
7. How do you feel about editors using LLMs to generate content?
A: WP:NEWLLM explicitly prohibits using large language models to generate new articles from scratch, and I think that prohibition is necessary. Despite being used in moderation and with human oversight, LLMs have a high tendency to to inject subtle, but not negligible, amounts of hallucinations, factual inaccuracies, and copyright violations. The burden of verifying this is on the person generating and prompting the LLM, who often fail to identify such violations. LLM is infamous for generating content that “looks good” and “sounds fluent and polished,” and therefore manages to slip through unnoticed. While I agree LLMs can be useful tools for editing and copywriting, it requires significant and consistent vigilance before publishing. At present, that is unfortunately not being done in many cases.
8. Do you feel that Wikipedia's policies regarding LLM usage are adequate?
A: Yes and no. There is a framework in place with WP:NEWLLM and WP:G15, but these are not enough to deal with the constant barrage of harmful LLM generated content. I believe that the more difficult problem is detection, not policy writing. The G15 criterion is good in theory, but the three indicators leave a lot of room for bad actors and careless editors to technically bypass the criteria, but still be completely unfit for inclusion in Wikipedia. We need to work on developing reliable and accurate tools for detecting LLM content and edits and update the policies to defend against such content, which I know is easier said than done.

Optional question from Jessintime

[edit]
9. What is your opinion on admin recall generally?
A: I support the idea of community-based admin recall in principle. Administrators are entrusted with their tools by the community, and there should be a clear mechanism for that same community to review and, if required, revoke those tools outside the formal ArbCom way. That being said, I acknowledge that there is definitely a lot of room for improvement. A few suggestions I have for its reform are shortening the duration from 30 days, adding a holding period between filing a petition and when others can sign it to allow for cooling down. While we are yet to collect enough data about how many signatures are correlated with RRfA chances, an increase in the number of signatures required is definitely something to consider.

Discussion

[edit]

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



Epicgenius

[edit]

Nomination

[edit]

Epicgenius (talk · contribs) – I'm delighted to nominate Epicgenius for adminship. Epicgenius knows what it is to work hard and get things done. With their 500+ good articles, they are the fourth-most prolific GA writer of all time. Compared to writing content, working in AIV, RFPP and REVDEL backlogs is easy, and their content experience makes them a good fit to work on DYK. Their ability to speak some Cantonese and Mandarin will also be welcome in the admin corps. I'm glad they are willing to turn some of their time working on content into helping with administrative tasks and I have no doubt they will do well with the tools. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

[edit]

Anyone who's seen Epicgenius's work across the project over the years knows that this nomination is long, long overdue, and I'm absolutely thrilled to co-nominate him. Epicgenius is, of course, best known for being an endlessly productive and talented content writer – and that's verifiable! I've handled dozens of his DYK noms over the years and can scarcely complain – in fact, sometimes I'll look for one of his hooks to grab in a pinch because they're pretty much guaranteed to be interesting and accurate. His content and content-adjacent work alone would make him a great fit for DYK queue moves, revision deletions, and AfD closes.

But Epicgenius is also a helpful participant at content review, content discussion, and user conduct noticeboards, with lots of experience letting admins know where trouble is and handling technical requests. The combination of those abilities gives him a knack for thoughtful analyses of user behavior, like this thoughtful pushback on an assertion that another editor was using AI. I've always found Epicgenius to be thoughtful, meditative, and courteous in our interactions around the project; I'm positive that with the mop, he'd be even more of an asset to the project than he already is. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. I have a few past alternative accounts and doppelgangers, which I have disclosed to ArbCom. Epicgenius (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose whether you have ever edited Wikipedia for pay: I have never edited for pay, nor will I ever do so. I have disclosed a non-financial conflict of interest and avoid editing articles in that topic. Epicgenius (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[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. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: I try to help out wherever I can, using the skillsets I've gained throughout my 13 years as a Wikipedia editor. These range from anti-vandal work, with which I was heavily involved in my first few years, to sockpuppetry investigations and copyright violations, which I come across periodically. Although my more recent work has been with content matters such as WP:DYK, WP:GAN, and WP:FAC, I've recently noticed numerous parts of Wikipedia that may benefit from additional administrator eyes. In particular, I would like to help tackle the WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, and WP:REVDEL backlogs, as well as Main Page matters including the promotion of DYK queues. Keeping these backlogs low goes hand-in-hand with content creation in improving the quality of Wikipedia.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: For the last few years, I have helped improve hundreds of articles, especially those related to my hometown of New York City, as well as my hobbies of architecture and transit. Many of these have been reviewed by other editors and, as a result of these collaborations, have reached Good Article or Featured Article status. Legoktm has written a Toolforge tool listing out the articles I've helped improve, and another list of the articles I've worked on is here. Although I've worked on many pages (500+ good articles and 37 featured articles at last count), my favorites are possibly New Amsterdam Theatre, part of a 42-article good topic promoted in collaboration with Found5dollar, and articles that I helped other editors improve to good or featured article status, such as Felix M. Warburg House and Gowanus Batcave.
In the past two years, I have been a coordinator and one of the judges for the WikiCup, a competition intended to encourage editors to contribute quality content (e.g. GAs and FAs) to Wikipedia. While not as important in the grand scheme of things, compared with my content creation work, my time as a WikiCup coordinator has also taught me how to handle delicate issues that arise. I've been particularly involved with reviewing the quality of submissions; in the past, there have been competitors who have submitted poor-quality articles for the sole purpose of gaining points. Understandably, this has created situations where editors have called for reform or abolition of the WikiCup, but by encouraging high-quality article improvements and reviews rather than quantity of submissions, I've been trying to reduce these negative impressions.
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: The collaborative nature of Wikipedia necessarily means that not everyone will always get what they want, particularly in consensus-based processes such as AfD and FAC. Everyone will have differing opinions on how to improve articles; the right answer is only found when consensus-based discussions win out over antagonism and rancor. A relatively recent example of this is at Talk:The Queen of Versailles (musical), where, in response to a dispute over how to summarize the reception of a new Broadway musical, I created a reception section to more accurately describe each of these viewpoints in detail. Focusing on the content, rather than on the contributor, helps resolve any issues that may come up. I discuss issues when I see that something may be in dispute, and I'm willing to change my initial viewpoints in response to arguments based on policies and guidelines.
I signed up as a young teenager and did not realize these things; early on in my editing career, I made some disruptive edits and have three related entries in my block log, all from over a decade ago. I take complete responsibility for the behaviors that led to these blocks, and I've taken care not to repeat them. I have not had any sanctions since. Instead, I've come to not stress out over edits that I disagree with, and I assume good faith of other edits.


You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions are disallowed, but you are allowed to ask follow-up questions related to previous questions. Make sure to use level-four section headers, not boldface.

Optional questions from TheInevitables

[edit]
4. How will you approach content that incorporates AI or language generated by it? To what extent should it be used, and when should it be, if at all?
A: I should make a distinction between generative AI (such as LLMs) and other types of AI (such as machine learning). Machine learning can be very useful, such as in neural networks like ClueBot, without which vandalism would be much more rampant. On the other hand, I do not use LLMs and believe that they should not be used for content on Wikipedia. There is empirical evidence that LLMs hallucinate and give out incorrect information, or, on the flip side, commit copyright violations by adhering too closely to the source text. Additionally, there is no guarantee that someone who has used an LLM has looked at the text they're adding. If I were to see content that shows unambiguous signs of having been generated by an LLM, I would remove it. If the content looks salvageable, I'd also check the sources and add back the content in my own words.
In the limited cases where AI may be useful to regular editors, the output needs to be, at the very minimum, double-checked. For example, AI can dig up sources that may not be readily discoverable using traditional methods; of course, one still has to review the content of the source manually, as the associated LLM often gives incorrect summaries of whatever it finds. I am not discounting the possibility that the quality of AI will improve in the future, but for the moment, my opinion is that LLM is not to be used on Wikipedia.
Since some people may still be unaware of the myriad issues with LLMs, good-faith editors should be warned against using them. Repeated misuse after several warnings would be akin to a WP:CIR issue, especially as we have numerous guidelines against LLM-generated text, such as WP:AITALK and WP:NEWLLM. On the other hand, this should be counterbalanced with the need not to bite newer editors who may merely be writing in a more professional tone (or more familiar with policies and guidelines) than we usually see on Wikipedia, and, as such, are sometimes accused of using LLMs.
5. Do you believe Wikipedia has been effective in enforcing its Neutral Point Of View policy and limiting editorial bias in its content, including in contentious topics? If not, what should be done to reduce possible bias?
A: In general, I think the community has done a good job maintaining WP:NPOV in more popular topics. In contentious topic areas particularly, articles are watched by large numbers of editors, many with widely varying backgrounds and opposing viewpoints. This helps balance out whatever bias crops up, since contentious additions and statements require consensus, and moderate positions tend to be more-policy compliant and closer to the consensus of reliable sources, compared with more extreme ones.
Bias varies more significantly the more niche or the less well-known the subject is, and it can occur not only in the verbiage and breadth of articles themselves, but also in the form of systemic bias, namely in terms of which topics are covered. Wikipedia editors tend to hail from particular demographics; articles will often represent editors' fields of interest or expertise, and, at least on this project, focus on the western world. Wikipedia is also sometimes accused of having an ideological bias. Some of the most controversial topics are also among the most viewed on Wikipedia, so details such as reference quality and word choice can play a significant role in shaping an article's neutrality, or impressions of such.
There are initiatives to reduce systemic bias; for example, the Women in Red project seeks to create articles about notable women, while the Developing Countries WikiContest encourages participants to write about topics in developing or developed countries. As for content-related bias, this can be resolved by having editors from a variety of viewpoints and sticking to reliable sources. Though the perennial reliable sources list has itself been accused of bias, the ratings on the list are largely fair, since they are a result of consensus-based discussions involving significant discussions of evidence, rather than mere headcounts. Furthermore, even at places such as the reliable sources noticeboard, consensus can change whenever new evidence comes up.

Optional question from Pbritti

[edit]
6. If you could institute a broad change to Wikipedia's editing culture, what would it be?
A.: To preface this, I wouldn't implement a broad change without first gaining consensus. That being said, it would be better if we made it easier for editors and casual readers to identify and fix problems with articles (such as verifiability issues or grammar errors). More than once, I have come across instances where someone found a possible error in an article but found the process of even bringing it up on the talk page, never mind fixing the article directly, to be rather tedious. Further exacerbating the issue, when these issues do get flagged on a talk page, they tend to slip through the cracks unless the article has a particularly high number of watchers. Even a maintenance tag on the article itself, such as {{citation needed}}, may not be resolved for months or years. While I do not have a specific or easy solution to this, it would be excellent if changes in the editing culture made it easier for users to more easily raise and resolve issues.

Optional question from Conyo14

[edit]
7. Why did you choose to go through Admin elections instead of RfA?
A: I chose to undergo an admin election because I found the process to be less stressful than RfA. At a traditional RfA, candidates answer questions and see how other editors !voted in real time, and some people may !vote before the candidate has been given the chance to answer a certain question. At an admin election, despite tradeoffs such as a more rigid election schedule, these issues are not a concern. Additionally, since several candidates are running at the same time, it lessens the pressure on individual candidates.

Optional question from Fade258

[edit]
8. Which admin action do you feel is the most sensitive and why?
A: There can be several ways to interpret the concept of a "sensitive admin action", but in the sense that an incorrect action in this regard may cause damage, I consider changing a page's protection settings the most sensitive action to undertake, as it can directly affect reader-facing content. There may be little downside to unprotecting a page where the risk of disruption is low, since it may encourage good faith contributions, and protection of articles in mainspace is generally not done preemptively (with some exceptions such as today's featured article and pages under certain contentious topics). Unprotecting the wrong page, however, may result in disruptive edits being disseminated more widely. This is doubly so if one unprotects a template, since disruptive edits to a template can be seen on any article where the template is transcluded.

Optional question from ZKang123

[edit]
9. With regards to the Sengkang LRT line FAC and the GAR for Singapore Rail Test Centre, do you think Wikipedia's sourcing requirements may reinforce structural biases? Do you think these might prevent or limit participation – for example in Asia / the global south?
A: I'll answer this by addressing underrepresented regions more generally, and Singapore more specifically. In the more general case, Wikipedia requires reliable, independent sources, which are harder to come by in countries that may have no or little freedom of the press. This would necessarily mean that, for these countries, there is less reliable sourcing from independent sources such as newspapers and magazines, compared to countries where such sourcing may be more prevalent. Without sufficient reliable sourcing, topics would not meet WP:N. Although this can certainly contribute to systemic bias, topics should use high-quality sources where possible, particularly if it would affect WP:NPOV, the second of the five pillars. I would thus say that, while Wikipedia's sourcing requirements may indeed reinforce structural biases, they are arguably also necessary to maintain the integrity of encyclopedic content. Unfortunately, there is no easy solution to this; Wikipedia follows the sources, not the other way around.
In the specific case of the two Singapore-related articles, there was a disagreement on whether the Straits Times (ST) or other Singaporean sources should be considered a high-quality source for FAC or GAN. At the time, the WP:RSP table classified the ST as marginally reliable in its "Status" column, while noting in its "Summary" column that the ST was generally reliable other than its coverage of political topics, as Singapore does not have full freedom of the press. These two articles generally relied on Singaporean sources' non-political coverage, which were the most detailed sources available. I advocated for treating ST as generally reliable other than its political coverage, while a few other editors took the position that the ST should be treated as marginally reliable; eventually, there was a discussion at WP:RSN over whether to change the content of the Status column. The outcome of this disagreement was not ideal, as it resulted in a FAC contributor walking away from the process completely. However, I also would not say it had much of an impact on systemic bias, since it did not impact whether the ST or other Singaporean sources contributed to notability - what essentially happened was that a source was reclassified from "marginally reliable for one topic, generally reliable otherwise" to "generally reliable for all except that topic, and additional considerations apply to that topic".

Optional question from Giraffer

[edit]
10. In recent years there has been a lot of discussion about the importance of assessed content (GA/FA) experience for effective administrating. As someone with a stellar record in that regard, do you think it will benefit you? If so, how?
A: Thanks for noticing, and yes, I certainly think the GA and FA experience helps. The WP:FAC and WP:GAN processes, and maintaining the quality of FAs and GAs, both require interacting with policies and guidelines at great length. To give a few examples: The GA criteria require adherence to copyright policy, and articles with significant violations of copyright may be speedily failed - something which is directly relevant to the use of WP:REVDEL. Both the GA and FA criteria require that articles be backed up by reliable sources; by extension, this means being able to spot unreliable or promotional sources, a useful skillset when dealing with promotional editing and spam. Maintaining the quality of good and featured articles also entails detecting and reverting vandalism where appropriate, which is directly related to the antivandalism skillset.

Optional question from Jessintime

[edit]
11. What is your opinion on admin recall generally?
A: In theory I like the concept of a recall process, as it generally benefits the community to hold admins accountable for serious concerns such as behavioral issues. At the same time, I think the process as currently implemented can certainly be improved. There are valid concerns that the current iteration of the recall process could be used over relatively minor issues, so I support discussions over fine-tuning the recall process.

Optional question from Daniel Case

[edit]
12. Are you aware of any editor you would nominate for adminship yourself at some point after getting the mop, if you do ? You do not have to identify them
A: I don't have anyone in mind at the moment. I know of some editors who may do well with the tools, but I'm not sure if they even want to run.

Optional questions from Robert McClenon

[edit]
13. You have made more than 350,000 edits. Have you been using any editing tools that increase your edit count?
A: Yes. In the past, I reverted vandalism using a now-defunct tool, WP:STiki, making tens of thousands of edits that way. I've also used AutoWikiBrowser and a similar tool, JavaScript Wiki Browser, to make edits such as setting up WikiCup competitors' submission pages and replacing navboxes in conformance with WP:BIDI. However, most of my edits (about 90%) are manual; I typically make a few dozen edits every day, which range from minor copyedits to article expansions. The XTools average shows that I've made about 77 edits per day since registering, though these statistics are skewed by the bursts of semi-automated edits that I make.

Optional question from 11WB

[edit]
14. You previously handled what you considered to be a poor merge. Another editor redirected 30 West 44th Street to Penn Club of New York, which you argued, per WP:MERGEINIT (no longer exists, but is visible here), that condensing 4500 words to 700 words on an lesser-quality article was unconstructive. You then reverted. You lacked the mop there, however if a similar scenario occurred upon obtaining the mop, but multiple editors believed the merge was suitable, opposing your view that it wasn't, how would you manage this as an admin? 11WB (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A:


Discussion

[edit]

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

  • Epicgenius's GANs are some of the easiest reviews I've ever done (despite their length) and I don't think anyone can argue that they don't write enough content. This is a truly amazing editor. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 17:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've also had the pleasure of knowing Epicgenius off-wiki for several years. The extent of his content work, particularly for NYC transit and buildings, is outstanding; we even have the "Epicgenius tour" of NYC comprising his GAs and DYKs – a distinction, coined by some NYC Wikimedians, that very few can boast. And in addition to his content work, he has exactly the temperament and know-how that would make him an asset to the mop corps. Complex/Rational 21:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Epicgenius' 12 years over 300k edits with 77% to content and never missing a month since registering are a demonstration of dedication. Some would argue long overdue for admin. Extremely unusual for an admin candidate not to have a clean block log and there are 3 short issues of naughty behaviour to consider. Is it a deal breaker? I think not. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Left guide

[edit]

Nomination

[edit]

Left guide (talk · contribs) – I first came across Left guide while writing notes on candidates' AfD records in the last admin election. "Huh," I thought, "that's a pretty daring WP:NAC." It was a good close, so I let it be. Then I came across another. Why the heck didn't I know this editor already? And another. And another. All of them solid closes - well-considered, correct, and not the kind of patently obvious stuff that's usually the business of NACs. I was intrigued. And over the past few months, I've watched them respond well to challenges of various kinds - willing to stand their ground and defend their reasoning, but also to change their mind when warranted and to humbly accept corrections. Of course, I wasn't the first one to have noticed. I'll let two other admins who beat me to the punch take it from here. -- asilvering (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination statement

Anyone who spends time around XfDs already knows Left guide, by far the most prolific non-admin closer, with over 1,000 mindful AfD and several DRV closures to their name in the past four months. I was coaching LG when they took their first steps with NACs, impressed by their knowledge of policy and guidelines, their mature, even-tempered approach to dispute resolution, and most of all, by their readiness to correct and learn from their own mistakes once those are pointed out to them. Lately, though, the only mistakes being corrected were when Left guide tactfully corrected my mistakes...

While only here for a bit over two years, Left guide demonstrates the skill and P&G knowledge you rarely see even with editors who have several times LG's tenure. With several GANs to their name, the content creation side is solid. The last time I nominated someone at RfA was seventeen years ago (and they went on to become a 'crat and an Arbcom member), so it's not like I do these things willy-nilly. I can't wait for Left guide to pick up the mop and take on the admin work they aren't already doing, and hope you will join me in supporting their candidacy. Owen× ☎ 23:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination statement

Left guide (hereafter, LG) and I first "met" when we were exploring a WP:UPE/WP:COI editing issue nearly two years ago in February 2024. I was surprised to realize that LG was a fairly new editor as I found their confidence and awareness of policies to be on the level of someone more experienced. In their 2+ years of editing, LG has become a well rounded and strong Wikipedia editor. This is not in a check box manner, but in seeking new areas to grow as they explored their editing interests. At AFD, they make thoughtful closes and respond well to any inquiries. This has continued through to their participation in DRV.

LG is willing to pitch in on a variety of backlogs and earlier this fall I asked them to help on a content area and while they admitted this wasn't somewhere they were experienced, LG improved the article in tandem with another editor. While Left guide is confident in their abilities as an editor, as well they should be, they do not hesitate to seek advice from fellow editors, including my fellow co-nominators. It was in these actions that I gained more familiarity with their editing interests and became one of several editors proposing adminship to them around the last elections. I appreciate their note then that they were interested but did not feel ready, a key piece of necessary awareness that is prevalent in all their editing. And now I ask all of you, if you see their edits in the same light as I do, to join me in supporting Left guide's candidacy in this election. Star Mississippi 00:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with gratitude to my nominators. Left guide (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose whether you have ever edited Wikipedia for pay: I have never edited for pay, and have no other accounts. Left guide (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[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. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: Becoming an administrator would allow me to do my existing set of regular administrative tasks (mainly closing AfD and RfD) more efficiently, lightening the burden on other admins and community members. This would most frequently involve closing discussions as "delete", but I've also encountered other closes where admin tools are needed, like RfD page moves requiring the technical deletion of an obstructing title that the page mover right can't accomplish, and certain types of AfD closes where protection is called for. My regular work with the deletion process has extended to DRV where I've been an active participant and also made over a dozen closes; there are a range of administrative actions I'd be both familiar with and comfortable implementing there.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Aside from the aforementioned administrative tasks and my content milestones on four articles as main prose author (three GANs, two DYKs, one ITN), I'd consider collaborative activities to be my best contributions because I enjoy these the most. I've recently taken on some coordinated article creations like Ricky Parker, Joseph Norman, and Berenice Olmedo, the latter two of which I successfully nominated for DYK. I've also been active in various WikiProjects (mainly sports-related) for a long time even before I began administrative work; in discussions, I have regularly interpreted and explained relevant policies, explored the reliability of sources, and started timely talk page RfCs to help resolve long-running, intractable content disputes. I particularly like being able to track down needed sources or information for people who post research queries on WikiProject talk pages, or at least point them in the right direction of where to find it.
One specific project I'd like to highlight is collaborating to expand what was the NBA WikiProject bibliography into a list of sources frequently found in the topic area with classifications on their reliability. All of the ones marked as questionable or unreliable (along with several others) are cited to discussions; I spent time researching archived RSN and WikiProject discussions, and then interpreting and documenting their consensus.
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: Closing discussions is often a means of resolving a conflict that other people are having, but sometimes the close itself becomes a source of conflict. A recent example was my close of the David Gillow AfD, which was brought to DRV. I closed as redirect seeing a P&G-based consensus against article retention. As usual when my closes are questioned, I remained calm and civil, and communicated the policy-based explanation for my judgment. A few challenged the close on merit, and many others opposed as a matter of process. After listening to this feedback, I realized where I had overstepped, apologized, and advocated for reverting my action which facilitated a quick, uncontested relisting.
From this experience, I learned that explaining my reasoning isn't always enough even when it's supported by policy, because context matters. P&Gs must be interpreted in the context of community norms; knowing how to read the room is a valuable skill in dispute resolution. I similarly learned that making a good choice is not only about how much I trust myself to make it, but also how much the community trusts me. I ultimately recognize that being a good administrator is about empathetically and collaboratively serving the needs of the community rather than "winning".

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions are disallowed, but you are allowed to ask follow-up questions related to previous questions. Make sure to use level-four section headers, not boldface.

Optional question from Conyo14

[edit]
4. Why did you choose to go through Admin elections rather than RfA?
A: It seems like a much lower-pressure way to request adminship when doing it amongst a group of peers. I liken the difference to doing a solo musical performance on stage vs. being part of an ensemble. Another factor is that having specific dates and deadlines helped by making me commit, rather than having the option to continue deferring it to another later time.

Optional question from Fade258

[edit]
5. Which admin action do you feel is the most sensitive and why?
A:

Optional question from Jessintime

[edit]
6. What is your opinion on admin recall generally?
A: Admin recall is a good process for allowing the community to directly hold admins accountable. Compared to previous means of challenging an admin's continued access to privileges, our current recall system (although not perfect) is relatively predictable and transparent, and has removed excessive bureaucracy. I also think the community should be able to directly vote out someone they directly voted in. I see being an admin as simply being an arm of the community. I am only as fit for the role as the community considers me to be.

Optional question from Let'srun

[edit]
7. When closing discussions at WP:AFD, how do you weigh votes that are alignment with the relevant policies and guidelines versus votes which fail to address them?
A:

Optional question from Ahecht

[edit]
8. Since your account is relatively recently created, what, if any, was your experience with Wikipedia before registering for an account?
A: I've been a longtime reader of Wikipedia, and have previously made some minor changes to articles like spelling and grammar fixes as an IP editor, and along the way picked up some basic tasks affecting the reader interface such as wikilinks and short descriptions.

Optional question from Daniel Case

[edit]
9. What are some unrecognizable (i.e., not for DYK, FA or GA) project-space content achievements you're proud of, like an article expansion or update, adding needed sources, improving the prose or overall organization?
A:


Discussion

[edit]

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

  • Notes on AfD participation: Most of Left guide's recent AfD participation is as a closer, not a !voter, so EFA voters may be interested in reviewing this instead: [14]. Example !votes: [15], [16], [17]. These are solid and helpful !votes; as a closer, I particularly appreciate when participants explain why one redirect target is preferable to another. -- asilvering (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Obvious disclosure: I nominated this candidate. -- asilvering (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to their work at AfD, amply covered by their nominators, Left guide has also been a helpful and consistent presence at RfD, where there is more scope for NACs. They have always been thoughtful, willing to ask questions when they don't understand something, and take feedback. I offered to nominate them as well, but unfortunately I lost that privilege to several other excellent editors. I'm looking forward to them being able to take some of more thorny closes from the rest of us at RfD :) Rusalkii (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • They somewhat regularly spot errors on the main pages and post suggested fixes to WP:ERRORS, all of which seem to have been implemented. This one Wikipedia would have especially benefited from them being an admin and being able to fix it immediately. I promoted their DYK article Statue of Dirk Nowitzki and remember being impressed with it. One thing that stuck out was in the sources that talked about the original version, they were really having a laugh at how it unintentionally looked like anal beads and their tone was honestly kind of wild with "Oh lord this Dirk statue is definitely one of a kind" and "This is a family blog, so I won’t discuss here how the balls, strung together as they are, resemble a certain type of bead that is used for non-necklace purposes. Do some Googling if you’re curious." And then Left guide very smoothly distilled that into NPOV with "A prototype revealed at Nowitzki's January 2022 jersey retirement had three interconnected balls showing the shooting trajectory, though this feature was met with sharp criticism (particularly on Twitter) and later scrapped;". It was a situation where it was extra important to not really lean into the ludicrous appearance of the prototype since Nowitzki is still alive and the prototype idea was "scrapped". Rjjiii (talk) 05:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've only ever had positive encounters with Left Guide. My essay had some great assistance from them, and as someone who has been around for a while, I can tell when a good editor comes by. Conyo14 (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been impressed with Left guide since we first crossed paths over a year ago, I think it was at an AfD. I noticed that their “voice” and temperament was well suited to having civil, in-depth discussions even if a situation gets tense. They have a solid handle on guidelines and policies regarding notability and are able to effectively communicate “how things work around here” to new users with patience and kindness. Their recent work at AfD performing non-admin closures is well thought-through and accurately reflects the community’s input. Those are excellent qualities for an administrator to have. We have collaborated on a few projects together, a complicated clean up task, and on two DYKs (along with Star Mississippi). Their content creation is solid, having worked on three GANS, DYKs and an ITN entry. Trust, level-headedness and good communication skills are the three most important qualities for an administrator (at least in my opinion). Left guide clearly has all those qualities. Netherzone (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]


  • I have learnt a lot about AFD closing from watching Left Guide they know a lot about it and do some really good work. Happy to see them running they have all the qualities necessarry to be an admin. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 01:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been amusing to see the (rare) administrator raise an issue with one of Left guide's closures, only for Left guide to ultimately be vindicated. In the meantime, they've always assumed humility and been even-tempered, in a way many would struggle with. Even with a relatively limited time onwiki, at least compared with other candidates, I'm not sure we've ever had a candidate so qualified to immediately start doing challenging closures at XfD upon taking the tools. I encourage participants to give this consideration before voting. Local Variable (talk) 06:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LEvalyn

[edit]

Nomination

[edit]

LEvalyn (talk · contribs) – I am very happy to present LEvalyn to the community. LEvalyn is a careful and diligent editor with a focus on content. They've created an impressive 79 articles, and written 30 good articles at last count. They have also found the time to contribute nearly 300 reviews at articles for creation, and to chip away at WP:NPP. AfC is an area where admin tools can only be an asset, as reviewers are often the first to see inappropriate content or nefarious conduct, and I fully believe LEvalyn will be able to make productive use of the tools there. Unfailingly polite, firm but reflective, LEvalyn is exactly the sort of clueful and considerate editor I believe the admin corps needs: I hope you agree. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

[edit]

I've been considering LEvalyn for a while now, and I'm thrilled with what I've seen of them as an editor and a person. Their kind and helpful commentary during GA reviews, of which they have many, is mirrored on their talk page, where they're always willing to help and do so in a kind and knowledgeable manner. On top of this, they themselves also have 30 GAs and a featured list!!

In addition to that content work, which I find exceptional, they've been contributing at AfC and NPP. In these two areas I've seen EXACTLY what I look for when trying to recruit people to AfC and NPP. They've demonstrated a great grasp of our notability guidelines, good judgement, a helpful and wonderful attitude, and the knowledge of their own personal limitations. When they find those limitations, they work to shore up those knowledge gaps. Someone always looking to improve who knows their personal limits, and has the knowledge and temperament that LEvalyn has, sticks out to me like a sore thumb when I'm looking for candidates. So, with all of this in mind, I hope people join me in supporting their candidacy. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. I have one rarely-used alt account, LEvalyn at work. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose whether you have ever edited Wikipedia for pay: I have never edited for pay. However, in the interest of full disclosure, at my day job in GLAM I've become known as a "Wikipedia person" and sometimes answer queries or give advice while "on the clock". Out of an abundance of caution, I made a dedicated account (disclosed above) for any related edits. These edits are not made at the direction of my employer. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[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. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: I want to be part of maintaining the long-term health of the project. Through my work with newcomers at Articles for Creation, New Pages Patrol, and the "mentorship module" (which sends randomly-assigned newcomers to my talkpage), I try to invest in Wikipedia’s future by helping a "next generation" arrive. I see a similar need for there to be an inflow of new admins, and I think I can do that usefully while upholding community trust. In particular, I’ve heard from other AfC/NPP-ers who got the mop that admins patrolling those areas can make frequent use of view-delete, some use of delete (for redirects that block creation, or delete-on-sight drafts), and occasional use of blocks (for promotional editors or obvious socks). View-delete would also be useful for mentee questions to the tune of "what went wrong??", in cases where their draft/userpage has already been deleted. I could imagine getting nerd-sniped into work related to copyright or perhaps Did You Know queue promotion, though those are areas where I’d need to do more lurking and learning before I was confident I was prepared to use the tools. Mostly, I am trusting the admins who have suggested to me that the work will find me, and that by joining in, many hands will lighten the load.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Lately, I’ve written a lot of Good Articles about sexy eighteenth century literature by priests, e.g., Manon Lescaut, the Laurence Sterne Good Topic, and a non-priest one that still tickles me, A Spy on Mother Midnight. I did better in the most recent WikiCup than I expected! Outside of content creation, I’m proud of the number of Good Article reviews I have conducted, especially in connection with Women in Green. But for the long-term health of the project, I think some of my most valuable contributions are the Articles for Creation submissions I am able to "help along" to acceptance by polishing and adding sources, like at The Shared Space. They are rarely excellent articles, but I hope my edits improve both the encyclopedia and those newcomers' entry to it. I am also very pleased any time I get a second question from a mentee, since I see it as a sign both that my first answer was useful to them and that they are on the path to becoming a long-term contributor.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I find a lot of comfort in assuming good faith: it is easy to navigate differences of opinion when I know we are all just bringing our own perspectives on what will make a good encyclopedia. My biggest experience of conflict was an extended disagreement about shakshouka which went to ANI a few times. I think I was able to remain polite and open to other opinions even when I got frustrated at points, and it was a good learning experience for me about how Wikipedia’s formal processes for dispute resolution all work a little differently. It’s pretty rare for a situation on Wikipedia to cause me stress, but if I notice myself feeling grouchy (or if I want to write a "witty" reply to someone) I take that as a sign to disengage, work on something super-enjoyable to reinvigorate my love of the project, and return to the original source of frustration only if I’m sure that, 1, the situation actually requires my additional input; and, 2, I am able to respond in a spirit of goodwill.


You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions are disallowed, but you are allowed to ask follow-up questions related to previous questions. Make sure to use level-four section headers, not boldface.

Optional questions from Sohom

[edit]
4. Could you explain your thought process behind how you handled your COI for the Suzanne Conklin Akbari article?
A: Happy to go into more detail. As my COI declaration mentions, at the time (four years ago) Akbari was an academic colleague, and in a conversation about Wikipedia she asked me if I could explain why she was the only faculty member of the Institute of Advanced Study who was not included on the List of faculty members at the Institute for Advanced Study. I said I didn't know, but her question hit me with a spark of curiosity. I investigated and concluded that her biography represented a clear gap in the encyclopedia, of the kind I sometimes fill for WP:Women in Red. I determined that she was not notable in 2006 when her article was deleted by PROD, but in 2021 she clearly passed NAUTHOR with two monographs, seven edited collections/anthologies, and many reviews. I then wrote the article entirely without consulting Akbari, the same way I'd write any other academic biography (eg, Deborah D. Rogers). I never discussed the contents of the article with her; I'm actually not sure if I even told her I wrote it.
It was only after I'd finished that it occurred to me that our acquaintance would qualify as a COI. I asked for advice from another editor (who happened to be an AfC reviewer); they said it looked suitably neutral to them, and since AfC isn't required, I should just disclose the COI clearly and then avoid editing the article in the future. In keeping with their advice, I have made only two minor cosmetic edits since then, discussed more in the next answer. If I were creating a similar article these days, I wouldn't move such an article to mainspace myself in the first place. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5. With hindsight, would have done anything different?
A: Four years on, and especially now that I have experience as an AfC reviewer, I certainly know now to start the draft through AfC from the beginning (as I note above). I also think, with hindsight, it would have been worth the awkward procedural aspects of re-draftifying the article to submit to AfC after the COI occurred to me. The main thing that looks different in hindsight is the importance of having my judgment about the article formally double-checked on-wiki, and avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. At the time, my primary concern was the appropriateness of the actual article content; today, and especially if I become an admin, I would place equal emphasis on appropriate process.
As for edits to an existing article, I'd certainly use {{edit COI}} requests for anything substantive, especially adding any new material. The two edits I have made since creating the article were quite minor: in 2024 I moved one sentence and put another in past tense, and six months ago I moved a sentence added by someone else to a more logical position. To be frank, I don't think it would have been worth the demand on the community’s time to use {{edit COI}} requests for these. If I get feedback that these edits would more appropriately be handled through COI edit requests, I would in future leave this kind of tidying entirely to others. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Wikieditor662

[edit]
6. Could you be more specific in regards to what you want to help out with specifically as an admin?
A: I can try! To be more specific about how the admin tools are useful at NPP and AfC, it would often be useful to execute WP:G6 speedy deletions of redirects that block page creation, or other speedies like WP:G4 or WP:G15 which can be found at both AfC and NPP. WP:G4 speedy deletions also need the admin tool of view-delete to be sure that the new draft is a recreation of a deleted one. "Things that naturally pop up while reviewing" is the main area where I expect to find use for the tools right away. I also plan to ask some admins to guide me through a few admin tasks, and see which ones I resonate with. For example, at DYK I’d call myself "backlog-curious". I’ve only promoted one hook to a "prep" and did not enjoy it; once I discovered that other people like the puzzle-box aspects of curating a set of hooks to create a "prep", I resolved to leave that work to them. However, promoting from "prep" to "queue" – the task that requires advanced tools, since it alters the main page – appears not to require that curation element I dislike, but rather requires the kind of quality-control checks of individual hooks & articles that I enjoy so much in Good Article reviews. So I hope to give it a try and see if it becomes one of my routines, like checking AfC book submissions and having a GA review going. I don’t want to make promises I may not keep – I don’t think I will know what "my areas" of adminship will look like until I’ve had a chance to try them – but that’s how I imagine finding my way with the tools. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Conyo14

[edit]
7. Why did you choose to go through Admin elections instead of RfA?
A: I don't like having people make a fuss over me. Elections seemed like marginally less fuss. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Fade258

[edit]
8. Which admin action do you feel is the most sensitive and why?
A: This is an interesting question. I consider all admin actions in some way sensitive; otherwise we wouldn't have to restrict the tools to a trusted subset of editors. If we mean "sensitive" in the sense of "involving exposure to information that may require discretion", I'd answer view-delete. If we mean "sensitive" in the sense of "risky for the project", I'd point to technical areas where one could create a lot of disruption very quickly: one mustn't muck up a filter such that all incoming edits are blocked. If we mean "sensitive" in the sense of "requiring particular care due to its possible impact on others", I might answer blocks/unblocks; that's an area where the tools give admins a particularly stark power differential, and mis-handling the situation can have a disproportionate impact on an individual who may have few options for recourse. Though, I struggle to think of any admin action that doesn't require particular care due to its possible impact on others. For example, implementing a speedy deletion may be more "routine" than "sensitive" because it follows an established clear consensus-- but it still requires care on the admin's part to verify that it meets the criteria for that clear consensus. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Jessintime

[edit]
9. What is your opinion on admin recall generally?
A: It strikes me as the sort of thing that there ought to be some kind of process to do, and I am very glad that other editors are dedicating their time and attention to monitoring and fine-tuning the specific details of the process. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

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

  • Notes on AfD participation: n=189. LEvalyn's !votes are always extremely well-considered and useful. Helpful even when brief: [18]. Patience in the face of LLM-generated tendentiousness: [19]. Kind even when arguing for deletion: [20]. Treats AfD as a discussion, not a fight: [21]. Willing to put in the work in the event of WP:ATDs: [22]. A valiant search for sourcing: [23]. I'm not even mad about this one, where he !voted against me. An excellent record. I'd say something about how I wish he spent more time at AfD, but I guess he's busy writing all those GAs and I'll have to be content with what I can get. -- asilvering (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm midly concerned about the lack of WP:AFC and {{edit COI}} use on Suzanne Conklin Akbari. The duality of "Hey I'm connected enough that I need to use the {{connected contributor}} template and declare a COI" and "but, btw, I can edit neturally about them and do not require AFC or {{edit COI}}" is a bit jarring to me even though technically okay within policy. -- Sohom (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Much would depend on how they are connected, what edits they make on the topic and the sources used. If the source is reliable, the information uncontroversial a reasonable person can easily make neutral edits. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. It seems the relationship was not paid in the broader Wikipedian sense, so neither precaution was required by policy. Toadspike [Talk] 01:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Toadspike Based on reading the response above, I do think {{edit COI}} or WP:AFC would be required though not mandatory due to the "writing about friends" clause in WP:COI. Though that being said, I think I understand better why they did take the actions they took and why it might have seemed correct to them at the time. I do like their response to Q5 in that their approach has changed in the years since and that they now place more emphasis on the correct process vs only the outcome! Sohom (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sohom Datta Sorry to nitpick: "required though not mandatory"? I assume you meant "recommended though not mandatory", in which case I agree. Toadspike [Talk] 15:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, my bad! Sohom (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sohom Datta, honestly, I think in general we (as in wikipedia at large) care too much about the process and not enough about the outcome, and I think someone who had no interest in being an admin four years ago was correct to care more or less exclusively about the outcome at that time. And I like to see people being able to make calculations like "is this worth community time?" rather than wasting that time basically for the heck of it. But it's also good, I think, that @LEvalyn clearly recognizes that for an admin, the appearance of impropriety is much more of a concern. Admins still get to WP:IAR, but differently, and I'm confident that L would be able to navigate that kind of thing. -- asilvering (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]


MPGuy2824

[edit]

Nomination

[edit]

MPGuy2824 (talk · contribs) – Happy to nominate MPGuy for adminship; I’ve known MPGuy for quite a while through their contributions to the technical side of the NPP project. He has consistently made contributions to the maintenance PageTriage extension (the extension that supports all NPP work), serving as a kind of unofficial bug-wrangler role, elevating community concerns to Phabricator and communicating fixes. For years, he consistently maintained Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements, closing issues that were already resolved and copying over existing community concerns into technical bugs on Phabricator. He also created Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements/Phab tickets, which served as a non-technical summary of development work occurring on PageTriage. This helped rally non-technical editors towards the issues that needed attention and also helped track work during the times PageTriage did not have an active team working on issues (which was a pretty regular occurrence before the NPP letter).

Alongside this, he has contributed significantly to the code as well, helping fix tasks surrounding copyvio detection, tagging pages, and a bunch of annoying edge cases surrounding suppression and filtering of articles (like, T334458). He has also taken over maintenance of the MoveToDraft script and the NPPBrowser, two tools that have seen heavy use in NPP workflows and made significant contributions to both. Since taking over maintainership, he's helped streamline the MoveToDraft script, adding guardrails against common reviewer pitfalls. Similarly, he helped bring NPPBrowser from the dead (it was shutdown by Toolforge admins for having code that violated Wikimedia Cloud Services open source requirements), removing the offending code and making fixes so that kept it alive and usable as part of many NPPers' workflows. On the content side, I have been impressed by their work on Indian constituencies, particularly their featured lists, such as List of constituencies of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly.

If there is one thing there is to take away, it is that MPGuy is extremely dedicated to making the fixes to the background so that the rest of the encyclopedia can chug along. Throughout the time I have known him, he has consistently been a person I can rely on to do the unglamorous backend work that keeps the lights on and prevents everything from falling over. I have my utmost confidence in him being a capable administrator going forward. -- Sohom (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom statement

[edit]

Allow me to help introduce MPGuy2824, someone who I firmly believe should have been an admin before I became one. They helped me become who I am at NPP, and I owe them a lot for their advice, guidance, and work on related tools at NPP. In addition, they were an NPP coord for several years until they voluntarily stepped down. I should probably also highlight the over 34k patrols and over 84k page curation actions they've taken. They've shown exactly what you want in an admin candidate, knowledge of relevant guidelines, recognition of their own limitations, and a willingness to always be learning and growing. Frankly, I think they've been overly hard on themselves in terms of expectations and should have ran a long time ago.

But if their NPP and tool work wasn't enough in of itself, they've got a very solid content experience resuming to go along with that, in that they've had 14 successful featured list nominations (more than double what I had when I passed!). I've had a number of successful nominations, and I'm proud of each and every one, but I'd have a tough time arguing for any of them over MPGuy2824, who's demonstrated so much in regards to experience that shows they'd make an excellent administrator. I dearly hope you will join me in supporting someone I've been begging to run for a long, long time. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose whether you have ever edited Wikipedia for pay: I have never edited Wikipedia for pay. I have cataloged other accounts that I've used at User:MPGuy2824#Other accounts. -MPGuy2824 (talk)

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. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: I have got some encouragement to run for adminship over the last couple of years and after seeing the steady decline in the number of admins since 2010, I think I am ready to contribute in that capacity. I am a gnome at heart and quite a few of the admin tasks seem to be gnome-like to me. They aren’t mindless jobs, but they are small things that only a few people will notice when done correctly. If given the mop, I plan to start off with CSD requests, followed (after a month or two) by working on the unblock request queue (which I’ve been informed needs more hands).
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have done some disparate things as an editor, so I’ll have to mention a few fields. On the content side, I like the process of bringing a list to FL-status, especially ones that are outside my regular category of Indian constituencies. Some of these lists have had a chance to even be on the Main Page. During the nomination process for List of presidents of Burundi in addition to learning a lot about the country, I also needed to start a discussion with a couple of page watchers. During the discussion we came to a compromise that kept the list looking a lot like other similar lists of the region, while ensuring that all the accessibility requirements of Featured Lists were met.
My contributions to helping baby editors take their first Wikipedia steps (as part of the Mentorship program) is also something that I take pride in. I’ve helped editors get over the panic of their article being deleted, find information about some medium-complexity editing tasks and figure out our maintenance tags. My contributions to the PageTriage codebase are what I like best though; many of the things that I worked on there were small bug-fixes and features that continue to help NPP reviewers to do their work with less friction.
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: On-wiki, I haven’t been a target of the level of vitriol that I’ve seen in some other user’s talk pages. Most editors that I’ve interacted with are happy to at least consider my views.
In real-life though, I’ve have been exposed to what I consider an average level of arguments. The advice that I give (and try to follow) could be summed up by “Don’t click ‘send’ when you are angry”, which for an admin on Wikipedia would translate to “Don’t admin when you are stressed”. Taking a break (maybe in some editing task unrelated to the stress-causing issue) usually helps me put things into perspective.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions are disallowed, but you are allowed to ask follow-up questions related to previous questions. Make sure to use level-four section headers, not boldface.

Optional questions from HurricaneZeta

[edit]
4. How do you feel about usage of LLMs to generate content (such as new pages) on Wikipedia?
A: Having read a few essays and explanatory pages about this, I basically agree with WP:NEWLLM, but worry about how such text will be reliably identified. Review of LLM-output by the prompter could mean anything from "Yes this looks authoritative", to FA/FL-level scrutiny of prose and sources. LLMs do seem to have some tells and hopefully editors are able to keep track of their drift over time. There are some interesting discussions on this talk page about how to modify the guideline to make it more useful.
5. If you become an administrator, what actions do you think you would take regarding LLM usage?
A: Besides a few areas (e.g. G15 deletions, and blocking/unblocking based on excessive LLM use in discussions), I don't think administrators have any special actions that they can take in relation to LLM usage. I would be comfortable doing those actions when warranted. Admins are also experienced editors though, and in that latter capacity, they can monitor and edit content to keep it sounding less like LLM-output. I haven't really done this yet, but I have noticed that this is a concern among many editors and will be keeping an eye out for this during my watchlist and random patrolling.

Optional question from Conyo14

[edit]
6. Why did you choose to go through Admin elections instead of RfA?
A: There is a reduction of apprehension when there is a group of people involved, but I’d say the main reason would be to beat my procrastinative tendencies. If I had decided to go the RFA route, the final say on when the transclusion of my nomination page would be mine, and I’m sure there would be thoughts in my head of “maybe it would be better to start this after 2 days (or a week)”. Here, there is a schedule already set and all I had to do was check that there was nothing major going on in my off-wiki life that would be a higher priority. I suspect that we will be getting a majority of our admins via the election route from now on, not necessarily for my reasons.

Optional question from Fade258

[edit]
7. Which admin action do you feel is the most sensitive and why?
A: "Sensitive" is a somewhat ambiguous term which could mean something to do with privacy/secrecy (e.g. viewing deleted revisions) OR an action that would cause a lot of harm if done badly/maliciously. Going through the list at Special:ListGroupRights#sysop, I think that using over-wide IP ranges during a block could be one sensitive issue. Considering a malicious admin, handing out of advanced permissions to meat puppets would be a cascading problem that would be a huge drain on volunteer time to undo.

Optional question from Jessintime

[edit]
8. What is your opinion on admin recall generally?
A: Adminship should definitely be revokable, and be revoked when the editor loses the trust of the community. I think that the only way to know if the 25 signature bar for recall is too high or too low is when a few RRFAs have run their course. We haven't had any as yet, although the withdrawn RRFA can be considered as a data point.

Optional question from 11WB

[edit]
9. Some of your contributions are on tools that reviewers rely on. With the added benefit of having the mop, how would you manage a dilemma where an editor or multiple editors would like a technical change, but that you and other developers believe could be harmful if implemented, rather than beneficial?
A:


Discussion

[edit]

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

  • Notes on AfD participation: n=295, over a period of several years. Recently, these are mostly nominations, via WP:NPP work. Some flubs from several months ago, where some more care would have helped: [24], [25]; in both of these MPGuy was immediately willing to change their mind when presented with the information they'd overlooked. A typical nom statement looks like: [26]. Explaining notability criteria to an editor whose article was up for AfD: [27]. asilvering (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally I'd be saying it's pretty important to look at a NPR's AfD contributions when they're running for adminship, but in this case I don't think they say much. And I can affirm from the NPP side of things that MPGuy's technical contributions are really appreciated. Also, we really do need all the help we can possibly get at unblocks, and I have no doubts about MPG's ability to handle those requests with sense and patience. -- asilvering (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lest anyone forget among all the banter, elections, and discipliary areas that admins are involved in, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's all about articles and as the gatekeeper for new articles, NPP is therefore arguably the most important single process on the project. I can personally attest to MPGuy's invaluable help as documented here. What he has learned through that collaboration alone plus his technical abilities to turn complex UI wireframes into code are more than sufficient to demonstrate a need for the tools and that I have every confidence that he will excel in whatever area he chooses to be active as an admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudpung (talk • contribs) 01:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]


The4lines

[edit]

Nomination

[edit]

The4lines (talk · contribs) – Today is a special day– I’ve mentored The4lines for years and have been looking forward to when I could nominate him. 4L has been an important part of the anti-copyright/plagiarism field for over five years and has a long record of careful and hard work in the area. 4L is a skilled and efficient patroller while also taking time to ensure articles aren’t completely mangled when removing issues; 4L has good content sensibility, shown on his work on good articles such as Witch Fire and Saturn V. He has over 3000 reviews at Copypatrol and several RD1 revision deletions requests and G12s to his name. 4L has also been a copyright clerk for several years and has helped greatly in moving along the often slow and laborious processes at contributor copyright investigations and copyright problems. Most impressive is 4L’s growth; I can attest to how much he’s matured over the years and how much he values feedback. I’ve watched 4L grow for the last half decade and am confident he will be an excellent admin. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:30, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

[edit]

Yet again, I find myself co-nominating someone that I have learned from significantly. I have had the privilege of working alongside The4lines both as a clerk and an administrator actioning his requests, and have been witness to thorough, careful work by an editor that is both confident and not afraid to be corrected. He is meticulous at Contributor copyright investigations and judicious at Copyright problems, where his knowledge of policy truly shines. As Money has pointed out, he knows his way around a good (and Good) article, and all three main copyright boards. He's even been someone I've learned from when I started in copyright and picked up clerking.

The4lines has had my trust for a long time—his work is neat and trusted by myself and others actioning his requests. We would love for him to take those requests off of our plates and simply carry them out himself. I hope you join Money and myself in agreement that he has the right temperament and will do fantastic with the tools. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:35, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. I have one alt account, The5lines, and two previous unused accounts that are disclosed to ArbCom. The4lines |||| (talk) 07:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose whether you have ever edited Wikipedia for pay: I have never been paid to edit Wikipedia, nor will I ever accept any payment. The4lines |||| (talk) 07:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[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. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: Over the past five years, I’ve mainly helped clean up copyright violations, whether by assessing reports at CopyPatrol, clearing out cases at CCI, or clerking at Copyright Problems. While doing these tasks, I frequently encounter situations requiring revision deletion (RD1), speedy deletion (CSD G12), or access to deleted content. Along with that, I would assist with others’ RD1 requests, presumptive deletions at Copyright Problems, and, if needed, block editors for violating copyright. Being able to handle these requests by myself would lighten the burden on the few other admins who work in copyright cleanup. In addition, using my past experience with counter-vandalism, I would be interested in helping out at AIV and UAA.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions to Wikipedia have been in copyright cleanup. I have worked on many CCI cases throughout my time helping out, including some major cases like Billy Hathorn and Ruigeroeland, both of which were large and time-consuming. On CopyPatrol I have completed 3,500+ reviews, placing me ninth overall. While clerking at Copyright Problems, I have dealt with quite difficult and complicated listings, which have required nuance and patience.
Outside of copyright cleanup, I’m quite proud of the three articles I’ve taken to Good Article status: Deep Blue, Witch Fire, and Saturn V. I’m especially proud of my work on Saturn V, where I overhauled the entire article to bring it up to GA status. I learned a lot about writing content on Wikipedia during the process. Manually going through 100+ references and checking them taught me how important good sourcing is to an article.
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: Working in copyright cleanup, you often find yourself interacting with angry, frustrated editors. Oftentimes, these editors are acting in good faith and are simply unaware of, or don’t understand, Wikipedia’s copyright policy. An example of a common interaction I’ll have when removing copyright violations is at History of chemical warfare. Naturally, they feel frustrated when I undo their edit, and it’s okay for them to feel that way. Copyright rules can be confusing, so I make sure to be patient. I think understanding that many of these editors are acting in good faith helps me better resolve the conflict. When I started editing, I was overeager and made mistakes while trying to make good-faith improvements, but I learned to be more careful and thoughtful with my edits. Those past experiences help me empathize with many of the good-faith editors. My mistakes also taught me another valuable lesson: how to admit I was wrong. When facing any disagreement, the first thing I do is check if I made a mistake, as we’re all human. Then, I’ve found that being patient and keeping your cool is vital for de-escalating the situation. If I ever feel like I’m getting frustrated dealing with an editor for whatever reason, I either leave and come back in a couple of hours, or I ping another editor to get another perspective.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions are disallowed, but you are allowed to ask follow-up questions related to previous questions. Make sure to use level-four section headers, not boldface.

Optional question from Conyo14

[edit]
4. Why did you choose to go through Admin elections instead of RfA?
A: There were two main reasons why I chose admin elections instead of RfA. Firstly, I think RfA puts a lot of unnecessary stress on the individual running, so EFA felt like the less stressful option. Having multiple candidates running at the same time takes a lot of stress away, which I found appealing. Secondly, my nominators and I happened to be available during this election period, which made it a convenient time to run.

Optional question from Fade258

[edit]
5. Which admin action do you feel is the most sensitive and why?
A: Sensitive is a broad term, and there are a couple of ways of viewing this question. Some administrative actions are inherently more sensitive in terms of privacy. Access to sensitive information, dealing with outing issues, harassment, and threats are a few that come to mind. It’s important to get it right on these kinds of sensitive issues because they can really hurt editors. Other administrative actions are more sensitive in terms of the amount of damage or disruption they can cause. For example, handing out permissions (rollback, NPR, page mover, etc.) to an ill-intended editor can create a huge time sink for others to clean up.

Optional question from Jessintime

[edit]
6. What is your opinion on admin recall generally?
A: Disclaimer, I don’t follow project governance super closely, so these are more general thoughts. The establishment of a formal recall process was a step towards greater admin accountability and transparency. Admins have a high level of trust placed in them, and if editors feel that trust has been broken, it makes sense that they should be able to recall the admin. On the other hand, the recall process is still relatively new, and adjustments are still being made.



Discussion

[edit]

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

  • Notes on AfD participation: n=26, only 1 in the past year. The4lines only rarely participates in AfD, and does not make particularly substantial !votes when they do. But it would be a mistake to factor this into a decision about whether to support them for adminship, as AfD has very little to do with copyright investigation. -- asilvering (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that that's out of the way: I'm glad to see The4lines is finally running. I'd like to underscore their answer to Q3 here. Copyright clerks make great admins for these reasons, and invariably have strong attention to detail, another good admin trait. 4L is no exception. -- asilvering (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • For those unfamiliar with the nominators, I cannot overstate how much Sennecaster and Moneytree's endorsement means for anything to do with copyright work. They're some of the most active editors in this area and I would have trouble thinking of an copyright-related matter in which they both agreed where I would not trust them implicitly. This includes this nomination :). Rusalkii (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • More bilingual copyright-focused admins are valuable because translation violations are some of the hardest to puzzle out. You can't use tools like WP:EARWIG or search for text snippets, when all the words have been changed, even though the the structure and broader composition remain the same (and therefore plagiarism and a copyright issue). Rjjiii (talk) 05:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Monolingual noobs like myself get by with Google translate browser extensions and manually reading the source, but this fails when the source is a scanned book. I'm lucky to be able to pitch on WP:DISCORD when I need assistance with non-English sources, but having "in-house" translation assistance is a blessing because then they also know how to clean up the copyvio if there is any. Sennecaster (Chat) 05:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyright cleanup is a thankless task, yet an essential part of maintaining encyclopedic integrity. As an admin who occasionally helps in the area, I know that most of my work is cut out for me when I see RD1 requests or CP listings from The4Lines. He will do great work in copyright cleanup with a mop. Complex/Rational 21:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]



UtherSRG

[edit]

Nomination

[edit]

UtherSRG (talk · contribs) – I have been here for over 20 years, and as an admin for much of that time. I mostly edit on taxonomy articles, patrol on my watchlist and the AFC acceptance page, and help out on Requests for undeletion and some similar boards. I take a certain pride in seeing a draft I've restored become a valid article (in part why I patrol my watchlist), and disappointed when I see such fail (even when it was obviously doomed). I have had a recall petition run on me and it succeeded. I'm running to retain my admin bit. If I am successful here, I would welcome a discussion on whether I should retain the full admin toolkit or if the toolkit should be limited in some way. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nominated, so yes, I accept. UtherSRG (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose whether you have ever edited Wikipedia for pay: I have never edited Wikipedia for pay. UtherSRG (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[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. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: I've been an admin here for many years. I took a long break and, when I came back, found a Wikipedia that had changed much without me. In many ways, those changes are good. In some, not so much. In looking to improve the project, I took some bold moves that skirted over the bounds of acceptable behavior. In trying to course correct my style of adminning, it took me too long to hear the message, and I corrected too slowly. A recall petition against me was successful, and I am running to see if the general population has lost faith in me, or if the general population of editors still supports me.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I never know how to answer superlative questions like "best". Instead, I can provided several things that I consider in the range of "best". I have a lot (but not infinite) time that I dedicate to working here. I have some significant history here (though that history is definitely of the mixed variety). I am dedicated to improving the project and honestly care about this place.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I don't know any adult who hasn't had some form of stress that they've had to navigate, and I'm no exception. I'd like to say that I'm always good at handling stressful conflicts, but I know I've failed from time to time. I try to take a step back and let all heads involved cool down before coming back to the reexamine the conflict, as cooler heads more generally prevail than hot ones. When stepping back, it's also sometimes good to tag friend to take a look at the situation while cooling down, as multiple perspectives can help shed light on the situation.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions are disallowed, but you are allowed to ask follow-up questions related to previous questions. Make sure to use level-four section headers, not boldface.

Optional question from Natg 19

[edit]
4. Can you expand upon your answer to #2? Your current answer does not offer any concrete/clear examples of your contributions to Wikipedia. (Question edited per monitor comment.)
A: Ok, how about I run through the things I do; because what I do are the things I generally like doing, so I suppose could be considered my best contributions. I hope this will satisfy. I start off on my watchlist, starting on the oldest and working my way up to the present. I look for a variety of things: Has there been any vandalism, over zealous editing, AI use, issues with MOS or readability, etc? Has a question been asked on a talk page that I can handle? When I get to WP:RFUD, I do what I can to handle any outstanding requests there. When I get to WP:Articles for creation/recent I look at the preview of the new articles and see if the preview looks good enough (bold and italics are correct, preview starts with the lead, there is a lead, title is correct, etc) and if not, fix them. Also on /recent if I see any taxonomy articles I jump in to do a more fuller inspection, cleaning up the taxobox, adding taxonbar, etc. (If anything, my work on cleaning up and maintaining the taxo-articles may be considered my "best" work.) Occasionally I'll dip in to other notice boards like WP:UAA. Barring any breaks for doing things IRL, I'll eventually get to the top of the watchlist, which I'll refresh and start over. I also have an issue category I'm slowly working on to reduce the number of articles in it.

Optional question from Tarlby

[edit]
5. After the admin review, ANI threads, and recall petition, how have you reflected and grown from this experience so that the community can trust you to use the admin tools responsibly in the future?
A: As I think everyone in a similar situation has had to, I had to stop thinking that I was right, I had to stop thinking I was important. I had to stop to consider that Wikipedia's PAG may have shifted, or that the user community's expectations on admins (or in general) may have shifted, or that that my understanding of these things may have shifted, or that all of these things or more may have happened. I think I've been an admin here longer that a few trusted users have been alive. Things change. People change. In order to continue on, I needed to change as well. But change doesn't happen overnight, nor did that understanding (despite the very specific call outs in the admin review, ANI, etc.). I also reflected on how I was approached about my errors vice how I've approached others on theirs, what the experience felt like, and how I responded. In some cases, I felt attacked, I dug into a trench, and I reacted poorly. I can see that that is also how others have reacted to my approach to them as well. This is bad on both ends. I have not fully course corrected; such a notion is absolutist. There is always room for growth and correction. But I'll continue to strive for better.

Optional question from Whyiseverythingalreadyused

[edit]
6. If this election does reconfirm you, through what actions do you intend to regain the trust of the community, especially the people who signed the recall petition against you?
A: If I'm reconfirmed here, I would say that the community already has enough trust in me. However, it's a low bar of trust. I certainly wish to improve that level, regardless of the results of the election. As I said in my answer to Q5 above, there is always room for growth and correction. I can point to Talk:Wildlife of Algeria as some small proof that I've at least begun amending my ways some (asking for neutral intervention where I'm involved), as that is a recent action and is on my mind. But specifically to the folks who signed my recall? First, I'll acknowledge the harm done to them, the result of which is the loss of trust. That harm is, predominantly, being WP:BITEy and WP:OWNy, and by acting when INVOLVEd. None of this harm I feel can be directly remedied. The harm is done, the trust is lost. The only way I can see to regain that trust is to build it up again over time, taking more appropriate actions (such as asking for neutral assistance directly as I point out above or via boards like WP:3O), and exhibiting better attitude choices. I offer my sincere apology here and now to those who signed the recall, and those who I haven't specifically reached out to.

Optional question from Conyo14

[edit]
7. Why did you choose to go through Admin elections instead of RfA, or re-adminship?
A: I'll admit right up front that, though it was not the only thought in choosing which option to go with, the fact that this option has the lowest bar to success was a factor.
The biggest factor, though, is that this process provides more time, if I remember correctly, for the decision making process to complete, and so gives me the most time to demonstrate that I am worthy of trust. Regaining trust is not done instantly, it can only be done over time. Jumping immediately from the recall to another process would not have been enough time to show in any way that I've begun the process of change. I will not be very upset if I fail in this election, and even this small amount of time is likely to be too short to adequately demonstrate enough change. I thank the Bureaucrats that they saw wiggle room to allow me to run in this election without removing my admin bit. Keeping my bit and not desysoping me immediately has provided me some amount of time to begin to demonstrate that I can be trusted. Had I chosen RfA or re-adminship, I would have had even less time to engender trust.
Another factor in choosing this route is that, because it is a regularly scheduled event, it gets more community participation, or at least that's my hope. The recall petition is not broadcast, so only folks who are already interested in it may even know that it is happening and, as such, it's a limited audience. I think this same limitation is true for RfA and re-adminship, though I could be mistaken. Having broader community participation I think is better in general, and I expect it will show that I've helped far more folks in my time as admin and that they will rally in support. And whether I'm wrong or right on this, I'll have an even greater understanding of where I stand.

Optional question from Fade258

[edit]
8. Which admin action do you feel is the most sensitive and why?
A: I see that you've asked this question on all of the other candidates' election pages, so I don't think you are particularly asking about my particular past behaviors, there is no way I can answer that without the answer being informed by such. The answer I have is: any action. Any action can be the most sensitive, if it undermines the nature of the project or erodes the communities trust in the adminship (in one specific admin or as a whole). User block, IP range blocks, page (un)protections, page deletions, page renames, rollback.... any of these can be, in the moment, the most sensitive if doing so is done in a poor manner.

Optional question from Jessintime

[edit]
9. What is your opinion on admin recall generally?
A: Well, having been through it and being recalled, I'll say it's not the best feeling in the world. 25 signatures seems like a low bar, especially with no allowance for "don't recall" signatures to offset that.

Optional question from Robert McClenon

[edit]
10. Would you please summarize what you think were the main concerns of the editors who signed your recall petition?
A: As I stated in my answer to Q6 above: Taking actions when involved, being bitey, and being owny were the main concerns of the petitioners. I'm guessing, since you asked this well enough after I answered Q6 that my answer there wasn't satisfactory. I'll go further with the answer to say that I got to that point by allowing my goodfaith meter to erode, and desiring to just fix things myself instead of taking a pause and asking for assistance, which amounts to being impatient. I'll also quote myself from an ANI thread: If there were an admin training program, I'd take it. If there were an admin mentorship program, I'd sign up and ask for a mentor. I may have said similar elsewhere. I know I've thought it a few times.

Optional question from lp0 on fire

[edit]
11. You said In many ways, those changes are good. In some, not so much. Could you clarify how you think Wikipedia's norms have changed for the worse, and how you think such issues could be resolved?
A:

Optional question from Patar knight

[edit]
12. Would you consent to a restriction from using certain admin tools and allow uninvolved admins to block you for violating those restrictions (e.g. similar to something Graham 87 eventually agreed to at his RRFA for blocking and unblocking (Qs 12-17) and Lustiger seth's commitment made at his his RFA for anything beyond the spam blocklist (Q5))? If so what would those restrictions be?
A: Yes, I would be amenable to having something similar, if that's what the community feels is the best way to approve of me retaining the mop. I think the proposed restrictions should come from a member of the community. Since the tool use in general isn't the issue, but the use of them in WP:INVOLVED situations, I'm curious how this would be proposed/implemented.

Optional question from 11WB

[edit]
13. Taxonomy articles require quite specific care, such as making sure the article is accurate according to science, complicated names are handled appropriately and quelling any disruptive editing occurrences. If you encounter such an article that has ongoing developments and discoveries being made, with conflicting information from different, but still credible reliable sources, how do you assess which administrative actions or edits to make that ensures fair accuracy for the reader?
A:

Discussion

[edit]

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

  • A little note I will make about the answer to Q5 is that Recall typically has a 30 day window for the admin to start the reconfirmation request, meaning had Uther decided to go through the RRfA route, the latest he could have started it was November 21st. Going through AELECT means the day editors will express their decision is December 9th, which is 19 days later than if he went through RRfA. So Uther is right about the fact that he gets more time (a lot more) to try to demonstrate that he can be trusted. fanfanboy (blocktalk) 19:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to vote against Uther, but I've decided to give him one last shot; if he doesn't pull his weight as an admin, there always WP:ADRC (edit at 13:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC): albeit after 12 months) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 00:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The petition may not be created within twelve months of the administrator's last successful request for adminship, request for bureaucratship, or re-request for adminship, or within twelve months of the administrator being elected an administrator or elected to the Arbitration Committee. Assuming a successful election, any requested action against a user who passed RRfA would instead require a discussion at AN/ANI within that 12 month period. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Major overlook there
    Thanks lol
    - Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 08:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be possible for Uther to waive this requirement, per this clause of WP:ADMINRECALL: Historically, many administrators have been open to voluntary recall ... admins can additionally create and follow their own independent recall process, including modified versions of this process that make it easier for them to be recalled. While this would ordinarily be a voluntary commitment, I imagine that in this case it would be treated as enforceable given it's been made as part of the formal AELECT process. While I'm not going to ask the candidate as I don't think having an answer will change my vote, feel free to ask a followup question along these lines if you think it might change yours. Preimage (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it's not, at least not in a binding manner. I raised this at the abortive admin recall reworkshop last year, but was shot down. [29] Historically, admins making themselves open to recall voluntary has always been an entirely voluntary and non-binding process that they can simply choose not to follow through, as the page itself makes clear. There was also some discussion of this at about non-binding nature of any commitments made in an RRFA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Graham87 2, the post-recall RRFA that failed.
    In any case, Uther has not indicated that he is going to waive this, so no one should assume that is the case. If he passes, for a year, the only ways to remove the admin bit would be through ARBCOM, barring behaviour that would merit a sitewide ban. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uther mentions an admin mentorship program in Q10. The 2024 RfA Reform saw consensus for such a program, but so far come nothing has from it as development seems to have slowed to a halt. fanfanboy (blocktalk) 17:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlike Arbcom which is less transparent and leaves no scope for appeal, although RECALL is harsh too, it does have the potential to provide another chance and at a reduced threshold. I think it's time to break the spell that being dragged to Arbcom or RECALL practically means permanent loss of tools and duties to the project, and shaming and shunning. Uther has reconised his faults already during the ANI and will certainly have learned from them. Giving him a chance to prove himself again as an admin is not going to break this Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yue

[edit]

Nomination

[edit]

Yue (talk · contribs) – It is a pleasure to put Yue forward as a candidate for adminship. Yue is a tremendously productive editor with a focus on building and maintaining content. Over nearly 11 years on the project they have made more than 80,000 edits to Wikipedia. They have written a number of articles, including two dozen good articles, of which I would highlight Cocoa production in São Tomé and Príncipe. Yue has been a calm and thoughtful presence everywhere they work, including in some difficult topics, and have done their best to enforce verifiability and neutrality. The breadth of their activity gives them many opportunities to make productive use of the admin toolset, including in anti-vandalism and implementing page moves. They have demonstrated the experience and temperament to use the tools carefully, and so I hope you join me in supporting them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

[edit]

I’m pleased to be co-nominating Yue for adminship! Yue caught my attention early this year with their reliable patrolling and anti vandal reports, particularly around conflicts in Asia and Africa.Yue is noticeably lowkey in their editing of complex and sometimes contentious topic areas, and is able to work with others through disagreements. Yue’s extensive content work– including on good articles such as 1995 São Tomé and Príncipe coup d'état, Flag of Mozambique, and Flag of North Korea-- shows just some of the fruits of their labor in the area. I believe Yue has demonstrated the required special sauce and that Wikipedia will gain an excellent admin if they are elected. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Note: My username was CentreLeftRight from 2014 to 2022. Yue ✉ 21:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose whether you have ever edited Wikipedia for pay: I have not. Yue ✉ 21:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[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. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: A lot of my work on Wikipedia over the past decade has been in content maintenance through patrolling recent changes, article alerts, and my extensive watchlist. Through this work I have become a capable identifier of dozens of appropriate and successful proposals in administrative areas that receive less attention than others, such as RFPP and RM. I often find backlogs of uncontroversial requests or requests with clear consensus that should be completed, but editors are waiting for an administrator to act. With my experience in these areas, I hope to expedite these and alike processes to keep our ship sailing smoothly.
AIV is another area I have experience in; a backlog of vandals is not something the project should have, and the sooner clear examples of vandalism can be stopped, the less damage will be caused to the project. I have likewise had dozens of vandal reports fulfilled since joining the project, and I think having the tools to deal with blatant vandals directly would be a great help to both my work and the project.
Regarding other areas of administrators' abilities, I do not intend to immediately jump into them if I become an administrator. However, I would like to build up experience by observing the work of veteran administrators and contribute in the future, particularly to other areas with frequent backlogs, such as DYK and CPN.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My focus on Wikipedia is content creation; I am most proud of the good articles I have written, particularly those about topics often overlooked in English-language media. The community-led editing drives Developing Countries WikiContest and Women in Green have been my favourites, and I was very happy with how the articles Cocoa production in São Tomé and Príncipe and Naide Gomes turned out from them, respectively. I have also contributed quite a few articles to Women in Red as well, with a focus on women from developing countries. Wikipedia, like a physical encyclopedia in a real-world library, is about sharing and expanding knowledge; there is nothing more fulfilling to me than popularising topics that have historically been forgotten.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have had my fair share of conflicts with other editors over the years I have been on Wikipedia, owing to my work in contentious topics and topics about culture and politics in general. What I have learned is that it is a better use of everyone's time when I leave myself open to differing opinions and interpretations of policies and content, and am focused on finding a compromise. When I do not think I am able to help find a compromise, I step back and invite the input of other editors to bring the discussion to a resolution (recent RM example). I think regardless of the circumstances, in the interest of the project, it is sometimes better to concede a position and wait for new input, even if that input is slow to arrive or never arrives (recent example).
Despite my experience I am not perfect, and I make mistakes from time to time; I am quick to concede, learn, and reverse my mistakes when they happen (recent AfD example). I also consider myself to be very open to criticism, as I believe the whole point of the project is to work collaboratively and in a productive manner.
I have been called a variety of labels and personally attacked on and offsite for my edits, but perhaps due to my background as an educator, I have never allowed such comments to get to my head. In the rare times I do feel stressed or burnt out by Wikipedia, I step back from the project until I am in a more ready headspace.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions are disallowed, but you are allowed to ask follow-up questions related to previous questions. Make sure to use level-four section headers, not boldface.

Optional question from Tenshi Hinanawi

[edit]
4. You've said that you're possibly interested in helping out at CPN in the future, however you don’t have any activity in this area and limited activity in copyright cleanup, as well as a recent history of not requesting revdel for significant text violations. Would you as an administrator handle copyright issues despite this?
A: Thank you for the clarifying question; I would not immediately jump into tackling copyright issues, but I would like to in the future because of its persistent backlog. "Building experience" means not only taking the advice and following the example of veteran administrators fulfilling requests (such as my co-nominator Moneytrees), but also observing and following the example of editors who make those requests (e.g. learning to tag problematic revisions with Copyvio-revdel, as you pointed out). My continued work in recent changes patrol and content creation / curation will likely lead to more run-ins with copyright violations, so I think building experience and being prepared for them is ideal. I have had numerous deletion requests for copyright violations fulfilled on Commons, so gaining experience on CPN on Wikipedia comes naturally.

Optional question from Conyo14

[edit]
5. Why did you choose to go through Admin elections instead of RfA?
A: Thank you for your question; I have two reasons: Firstly, administrator elections are relatively new and occur only biannually, so I think greater participation in the process by candidates and the wider community will create awareness and confidence in it. Secondly, I believe having a secret ballot vote could be advantageous for the community because it allows voters to express their opinion(s) on a candidate without being on public record or committing lots of time to a discussion. I would rather have an informed editor vote against my candidacy than not participate in the process at all because they were worried about the time required or harming our collaboration.

Optional question from Fade258

[edit]
6. Which admin action do you feel is the most sensitive and why?
A: That is a great question; I think most administrator actions are sensitive to some degree because of the power administrators hold and the expectation that they will use that power carefully and appropriately. I think actions that permit administrators to act unilaterally as final decision-makers are particularly sensitive areas, as are actions involving the deletion of content. For these reasons I personally find closing close deletion discussions and deleting content (in general, but especially speedy deletions) to be the most sensitive actions, because in my experience even problematic articles are oftentimes created in good faith. I think when engaging with new editors in particular, it is important to follow up with clear explanations and tips to encourage them to create something better in the future. This will avoid leaving them with the impression that their work is not or will never be suitable for Wikipedia.

Optional question from Jessintime

[edit]
7. What is your opinion on admin recall generally?
A: I believe administrator recall is a good way for the community to hold fellow members of the project accountable. I have read through most of the criticisms levied at it, but I think the process is working as intended and the outcomes have been appropriate.


Discussion

[edit]

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

  • Notes on AfD participation: n=265. Most of this participation is over the past year. And it's consistently excellent. Let's get this oops out of the way quickly: [30]. Alright. Moving on, even their shorter !votes are helpful and clear: [31], [32]. Their deletion rationales are well-argued and thorough: [33], [34], [35]. If there's anything to complain about here, it's that they're too receptive to feedback. I think both of these should have been allowed to continue: [36], [37]. Again, an excellent record. -- asilvering (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure WP:Articles for deletion/Alan Yu (chef) was withdrawn properly as there was another delete !vote. --Enos733 (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yue's work at AfD is excellent. They nominate many articles (a spree of minor Canadian political parties comes to mind), and the great effort they put into research ensures these nominations are very accurate. I have also interacted with them at DSZH from time to time, where they have been very helpful. In this area, Yue is more than qualified. (The case raised by Enos seems like an accident; in any case the one delete !vote's reasoning, a complete lack of sourcing, had been invalidated.) Toadspike [Talk] 01:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_elections/December_2025/Discussion_phase&oldid=1325671962"