🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Toadspike
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Toadspike

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

Toadspike

Final (245/0/1); closed as successful by 28bytes (talk) at 16:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Monitors: Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Nomination

Toadspike (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to put forth Toadspike for administrator. I first noticed his iconic bright green signature at RM after I got my own page mover rights and saw a competent, methodical, and calm way of handling discussions. I quickly found myself sighing in relief whenever I saw him show up in heated RMs or beating me to a close; this is someone I and others trust and learn from regularly. Toadspike is a frequent contributor at RMTR, keeping the page clean of requests and explaining why various requests are contested with steps to go forward. He is consistently clear and patient with newer editors, the primary users of RMTR, but firm enough to enforce the article title guidelines. But even more exceptional are his requested move closes. Even when challenged, he remains calm, focused on the merit of the arguments, and I find him to be well-reasoned and always with a plausible, valid read of consensus.

Outside of requested moves he is diligent at providing AFD with high quality participation, translation assistance, AFC and NPP, and improving articles. You can gander around his contributions and find thoughtful, thorough work no matter where you look. He is an editor that I trust to handle adminship with diligence and decorum. I hope you join me in supporting. Sennecaster (Chat) 14:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Co-nomination statement

You don't need to hang around AfD for long, either as participant or closer, to become grateful for Toadspike's accurate, in-depth, and well-researched !votes. In particular, 'Spike haunts WP:DSCH and WP:DSZH, bringing his multilingual source-sleuthing skills to bear on some of our most difficult discussions, where he is always collaborative, kind, and sympathetic. As Sennecaster notes, he remains calm when challenged, even when that challenge comes from the kind of person who signs off with a "go to hell." (For the even temperament required of administrators, look no further.) His experience with the administrative side of the project extends through WP:AFC, WP:NPP, WP:RM, and copyright cleanup. For these reasons, I have been (gently!) pestering him to run for the better part of a year. I am glad to see the time has finally come. -- asilvering (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you. I accept the nomination. I have never edited for pay and I have one alternate account, User:Toad's Pike. Toadspike [Talk] 15:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: I enjoy helping out where my skills and abilities are most needed. In the past, this has meant helping with language-related queries and translations or making use of access to sources others may not have. Over the past six-and-a-half years, I have also built up skills that are very specific to Wikipedia's "backend" processes, such as assessing notability at articles for deletion, determining common names in requested moves, and summarizing consensus in discussions, alongside general familiarity with our many policies, guidelines, and processes. Lately, I have noticed that I often have the knowledge to act on administrative tasks, but not the tools. This includes closing AfDs as delete, performing admin requests at RM/TR, or fixing Main Page issues at ERRORS. I am interested in becoming an administrator because I'd like to make better use of what I've learned and improve the encyclopedia in new ways.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: 5 Broadgate, Julier Pass, and Anna Pestalozzi-Schulthess are representative of my content work, along with the six articles I’ve had featured on DYK (linked at the top of my userpage). I am equally proud of my content reviews, which often require greater attention to detail, especially the source reviews. Some examples are Featured article candidates/Guandimiao, Featured list candidates/List of Kansas City Chiefs first-round draft picks, Featured article candidates/Kim Kitsuragi, and Talk:Vavilovian mimicry/GA1. I like to think my participation at AfD and my assistance at RM/TR have also been useful, and I help out at the Resource Exchange when I can (which not as often as I like; y’all request obscure stuff!). Finally, I’ve closed some gnarly discussions; many of these can be found in my edits to CR, such as this RfD and this RSN discussion, but this also includes my closes of RMs and AfDs.
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 often had disagreements with others and certainly been stressed; when I see a new talk page message, my first instinct is (still) to wonder what I’ve screwed up. However, I try to prevent disagreements from becoming emotional or personal, because that is the best way to find consensus and improve the encyclopedia. The discussion on my user talk page of my close of the Church Fathers RM is an example where I took time to respond calmly and carefully, focusing on my interpretation of the discussion in light of relevant policy. Once I had explained my close and the discussion felt like it was going in circles, I left it at that. The close was then taken to Move Review, where I chose not to comment, having already said everything I wanted to on my talk page. Overall, my conduct in that situation was a good example of how I prefer to handle potentially contentious interactions.

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-five section headers, not boldface.

Optional question from Sdkb
4. I see that you have done several featured article candidate reviews. Could you share with us a bit more about why and how you approach this work? (Note: I have already !voted, but I'm asking this since I think it's healthy for RfA candidates to have the opportunity to discuss their contributions. Monitors, feel free to count it as two questions due to the and.)
A: Thank you for the question, Sdkb. Apologies for taking so long to answer; my drafts kept turning into FAC review how-to guides. I've tried to distill that into something more concise.
I do content reviews, not just at FAC, because I'm interested in the topic of the article. It is a lot of fun to read and discuss an article and its sources with my fellow editors. As elsewhere, I also enjoy applying specific skills (usually language) where they are most needed and helping to clear backlogs.
As for my approach, the starting point for a review is to read the article. Even after editing for over half a decade, I consider myself a reader first and editor second. Everything we do should further the reader's understanding. I then read some of the sources, usually the ones cited for the most interesting or exceptional claims, because it's fun and it teaches me more about the topic. This is also why I tend to spotcheck a very large proportion of citations in my source reviews, during which I check for source-text integrity (of paramount importance in everything we do on Wikipedia). Source reviews are also the review type best-placed to assess comprehensiveness, though this is easier with some background knowledge. Having no background knowledge can also be a good thing: Starting out clueless is the best way to check if the average reader would understand an article (e.g. my parasitic ant review). When pointing out potential issues, I try to be extremely specific. Whenever I can, I suggest a fix myself. I try to remain constructive: Though I critique the nominator's work, I do not criticize the nominator. My last thought is that I wish nominators were more brave. I am nitpicky and I am sometimes wrong; I wish nominators were more willing to push back against my suggestions.
Optional questions from Ultraodan
5. What do you think you will use admin tools for most and least often?
A: Right off the bat, I will most often reach for the tools to perform G6 deletions of redirects without history to clear the way for page moves. I currently handle a lot of technical move requests with round-robin moves instead of G6 simply because it’s faster as a non-admin, even though a G6 leaves a cleaner page history and move log. There are some other admin tasks I find interesting in my answer to Question 1. The range of admin tasks is so wide that it is hard to say what I will do least often; the true answer will likely be something I've never heard of. But of the things I have heard of, rollback is a userright I've never felt a need for, so I am unlikely to use it frequently; I’m also unlikely to frequent some of the more obscure XfD venues like MfD.
6. There's been some discussion about the importance of content creation from RfA candidates. A rule of thumb I often see is at least one article at GA status. What's your opinion about vast experience creating high-quality content being seen as a requirement for adminship?
A: While I don't think "vast experience creating high-quality content" should be a requirement for adminship, I do think some experience creating high-quality content is a very good thing. Good articles are used as a proxy for knowledge of our content guidelines. There are other ways to demonstrate familiarity with our content guidelines and there are some things that writing a GA doesn't teach you. For instance, GAs do not guarantee knowledge of notability or BLP policy. On the other hand, there are things you learn by submitting an article to a content review process, especially about yourself and your writing, that are difficult to learn any other way. It is hard to discover that your prose is too technical or verges on CLOP without having someone else read it and tell you. Finally, content reviews can vary widely, so simply looking at the statistics can be misleading: I worked a lot more on and learned a lot more from my "review" of the Kim Kitsuragi FAC than I did from the Alcoholism GAR, but only the latter gives me a userpage icon.
Optional question from DragonflySixtyseven
7. Under what circumstances would you leave a new editor a personalized message on their talk page as opposed to boilerplate? DS (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
A: I almost always go with a personalized message. The only exception is when I am recent changes patrolling, during which I leave appropriate warning templates for clearly disruptive edits using antivandal scripts. Banner blindness is a real challenge and writing concise, personalized messages is the best way to get important information across.
Optional question from GTrang
8. How will you assess consensus at AfDs that have a mixture of "delete" and "keep" !votes?
A: Just as I have been for over a year now. The most common example of a mix of different !votes is when an article was nominated, got a few delete !votes, was then improved, and then got a few keeps. In cases like this, I weigh the earlier !votes less, though I prefer to have some indication that those early !voters actually changed their mind (e.g. after being pinged) rather than just assuming their concerns have been addressed. In cases where there was no major shift in !voting patterns over time, the most important factor is the strength of arguments and sourcing. Comments from editors with a clear conflict of interest can be discounted, and where canvassing or sockpuppetry seems likely, comments from very new or inexperienced accounts can be weighed less. If after all that there is still no consensus, then I relist, close as no consensus, or let the discussion sit with the hope that it'll attract more attention from experienced editors in the old discussions section.
Optional question from ZKang123
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: Wikipedia can only be as good as its sources. This Signpost article on the gender gap is a great explanation of another area where our sources limit our ability to cover underrepresented topics. The cases you mention are just the tip of the iceberg – Singapore has a strong media ecosystem, a great library system, an excellent online newspaper archive of digitized papers, and sources primarily in English. None of that is true for most countries of the Global South, which makes it very challenging for the average Wikipedian to find reliable sources. So, do Wikipedia's sourcing requirements reinforce structural biases? Yes, absolutely. However, we have good reasons for requiring reliable sources. We don't want anything people post on social media to be used as a source on Wikipedia, even if that is how much of the world gets their news. As for whether this prevents or limits participation – I can't decide how other editors react to these sourcing problems, but to me they are an interesting challenge to wrestle with and overcome, for instance by finding and translating non-English sources. In my view, that attitude is the best way to improve our coverage of places where sourcing is limited and counteract bias where we can.

Discussion

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

Numerated (#) "votes" in the "Support", "Oppose", and "Neutral" sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account. All other comments are welcome in the "general comments" section.

Support
  1. As nominator. -- asilvering (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  2. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  3. Support, will make a great admin. MCE89 (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  4. As nominator! :D Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 16:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  5. A strong candidate, I wholeheartedly agree with the nominators' assessment of their comportment and the value that they have brought to various noticeboard discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 16:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  6. Expletive yes. charlotte 👸♥ 16:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  7. I've had my eye on Toadspike for a time. I am particularly excited to have an admin with native trilingual fluency in English, German (the language of the next-largest Wikipedia), and Chinese (the most widely spoken language in the world) and who really enjoys helping with translations on request. And that is doubly so for someone active at AFD, where we desperately need editors who can find and consider non-English sources. Easy support. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
    While I am here, I am particularly unconcerned with the neutral's concerns; even under the assumption that content should be a prerequisite for RfA, you can show you understand how content with, well, everything listed in the nominations and in Q2. The fact Toadspike hasn't engaged with one particular way to demonstrate that experience is meaningless. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  8. Support - great participation record at AfD, clearly understands our policies and guidelines. Owen× ☎ 16:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  9. Support I've seen them at AfD and have appreciated the amount of work they put into the discussions. Dr vulpes (Talk) 16:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  10. Support - I've interacted with Toadspike a few times, at AfD and WikiProject China. I absolutely concur with the nominators' statements, and think that they will make a splendid administrator. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  11. Support Elli (talk | contribs) 16:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  12. Support – I am not concerned at all by the lack of a GA, especially given Toadspike's participation in GAN and FAC reviews. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  13. Thoughtful and competent. Has valuable language skills. AfD closes show good judgement. Has the critical ability to reevaluate their own position. Support. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
    I know this RfA isn't remotely contentious, but the point is still worth making: knowledge of content policy in an administrator is essential. Ritchie's essay covers a lot of the reasons in more detail than I can here. But there's a number of ways to demonstrate knowledge of content policy: GAs are a rough heuristic at best. Article creation, DYK, FAC; reviewing other articles; rescuing content at AfD; fixing sourcing in a bad article; even careful review at NPP. Toadspike has done enough of those things. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  14. Support. I've run into Toadspike quite a lot writing about Chinese history, and I can say they're a dedicated editor and a huge asset to the encyclopedia. I don't frequent AfD or RMs as much as some, but I when I do I often see them around and see them making great points. I also wanna +1 HouseBlaster's point on the importance of multilingual editors. And re: the neutral; I feel editors who know how to recognize when an article is in a bad spot and help with that know just as much about content creation as someone with a dozen FAs. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  15. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 17:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  16. Easy support, I've very impressed from prior interactions with Toadspike. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 17:08, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  17. Easy support from me. Work in review spaces clearly shows, to my mind, the sort of content expertise we would normally look at GA nominations and similar to evidence. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  18. Support -- always need more AfD administrators and this one is very strongly endorsed. Articles written look nice. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  19. Support – good editor who cares about people Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  20. Support, very nice editor to deal with; their record shows that they have the knowledge and skills to go with it. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  21. Support – Yay, my first RfA! Seems fine to me, might change depending on questions. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 17:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  22. Support, nothing but positive interactions with them, their engagement in content spaces through reviews assuages any content-specific concerns. -- Sohom (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  23. Support mostly because of answer to Q3. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  24. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  25. Support of course!--A09|(talk) 17:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  26. Support, very strongly. CoconutOctopus talk 17:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  27. Support, much of this has already been said but Toadspike is level-headed and understanding, always a great addition to discussions, and I've had exclusively positive interactions. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  28. Support, have seen Toadspike around quite a bit in the page review/AfD world and I believe their adminship will be a big positive for the project. Good luck! Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  29. Support. Frost 17:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  30. Support touchdown! NicheSports (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  31. Support Yes sir! (Finally another RfA 😭) fanfanboy (blocktalk) 17:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  32. Mais oui! --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  33. Suppoort, per trusted noms. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  34. Support, per trusted nominators. I don't think having a GA or a FA should be a prerequisite to adminship. Toadspike has more than enough content work for my tastes and has been always been a calm and reasonable voice where I've seen them around. LightlySeared (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  35. Support (Another RFA YAY!!!!) Valorrr (lets chat) 18:14, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  36. Support. The poise Toadspike showed in the discussion related to the Church Fathers requested move is commendable. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  37. Support No doubts. Tenshi! (Talk page) 18:21, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  38. Support. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  39. Support. No problems here! Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  40. Support will be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  41. Support no worries here. Ceoil (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  42. Support, enthusiastically. Toadspike has a command of multiple languages and an even temper, in addition to a lot of clue and, from everything I have seen, a good grasp of policy. --bonadea contributions talk 18:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  43. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  44. Support - I've seen Toadspike around, and my impressions have generally been all positive. Experienced editor with civility and sense :). GoldRomean (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  45. Support thanks for the chemistry lesson! Joke talk aside, don’t see problems with Toadspike and he should be a positive to the wiki with the admin tools, cheers! Kline • talk • contribs 19:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  46. Support - No reason not to. Garion96 (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  47. Support Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  48. Support LGTM - had my eye on Toadspike for a while as a potential addition to the mop corps. ~delta (talk • cont) 19:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  49. Support I spent a bit of time looking into this candidate, and I saw only green flags. His AFD match rate is 93% and he's pretty even between keeps and deletes, and his AFD contributions have been praised by many more eloquent people above and on his talk page. Speaking of which, I skimmed his talk page archives, and saw the exact type of collegiality and accountability that we look for in admins. I'm not worried about the lack of a GA because his work with new page patrol and the guild of copy editors shows that he has a strong grasp of our content policies and guidelines. Toadspike will make a great admin. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  50. Support ULPS (talk • contribs) 19:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  51. Support Rossouw (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  52. Support- because I thought he was...already a system operator, and a good, clear, efficient and friendly one at that. .--e.ux 20:09, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  53. Support: I recall their delicate handling of the initial Church Fathers move mentioned above. I was not privy to their subsequent response to challenges on that close. Having read that and the recent tangentially related ArbCom decision, I am thoroughly impressed with this editor's commitment to the admin elements of the project. Their consistent quality content work makes them an ideal candidate in my book. Best of luck with the mop! ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  54. Support. Trustworthy and a good editor. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  55. Support I don't always agree with Toadspike but I trust this user with the tools. Not concerned regarding the content creation. Let'srun (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  56. Support HouseBlaster said it well. Perfect4th (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  57. Support I couldn't think of a reason to oppose seeing as Toadspike has always been a great editor all around Wikipedia. JuniperChill (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  58. Support Glad to see this! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  59. Support! Fathoms Below (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  60. Support I've seen them around. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  61. Support Why not. And thanks for reminding us we have these. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  62. Support Patient, articulate and sensible. Overqualified. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  63. Strongest possible support. The admin corps would benefit from stable hands like Toadspike. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 21:18, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  64. Support no issues for me. – robertsky (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  65. Support I see no issues he as a good AFD record and everytime I encounter him in a discussion he makes considered calm points.GothicGolem29 (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  66. CNC (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  67. Zzz plant (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  68. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 21:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  69. Support My interactions (direct and indirect) with Toadspike have only left a positive impression. – haj ☘ (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  70. Of course. ~ Matthewrb Let's connect · Here to help 22:08, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  71. Support - I have no doubt that Toad is a competent candidate and I appreciate their calm but thoughtful approach. Also a bonus to have an admin that understands more technical medical topics a bit. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 22:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  72. Support Alexeyevitch(talk) 22:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  73. Support Trustworthy editor, trustworthy noms. What's not to like? Miniapolis 22:44, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  74. Support - I've observed Toad in discussions -- have found them thoughtful and knowledgeable -- and trust they will do fine as an admin. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  75. Support I agree with EF5 that developing a GA would have made this easier for Toadspike, but I consider their quality GA and FA reviews to be sufficiently indicative of competence in article writing/improvement. I enjoy Toad's thoughtful contributions and am sure they will make good use of the mop. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 23:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  76. Support Seems competent and thoughtful :) Renerpho (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  77. Support: This is probably two of the strongest 'new school' nominators you could have, and I respect the hell out of the fact they're choosing RfA over the elections. Also, not to be confused with ToadetteEdit. They've been on my radar as a nominator for a while, and I'm thrilled to see two of the people I respect most nominating them .Hey man im josh (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  78. Support. My interactions with Toadspike have been nothing but pleasant and productive, such as on this DYK nomination. I think he knows his way around the backrooms enough that he'd do well with a mop in hand. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  79. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  80. Support I run into Toadspike periodically when I see their closes, and they've closed well discussions I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. I've always been impressed with their judgement and response to pushback. Rusalkii (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  81. Support. I have seen the candidate around, and he frequently makes highly sensible admin requests. He should just carry out those requests himself. Mz7 (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  82. Support per Queen of Hearts (Charlotte). Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  83. Sure, why not? I've had only positive encounters with this user and think he could be trusted with the tools. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  84. Support - They've been around and have helped out in AfD quite a bit. They deserve the mop. — Benison (Beni · talk) 01:57, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  85. Oui I can't see why not. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  86. Support. Good impressions from around the project.—Alalch E. 02:09, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  87. Support I see Toadspike as an admin without tools, from my small time here observing I would trust them with the tools to see what they can do with them. Gramix13 (talk) 02:57, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  88. Support Thank you for your work! Tvpuppy (talk) 03:20, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  89. Support. Well, My first RfA comment. He would become a good admin. His participation in AfD looks good, from where I know him. Fade258 (talk) 03:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  90. Support. Wouldn't have remembered they weren't already one if not for the highlight script. Agree with Josh, generally and I think this is going to be a good thing for closures particularly. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  91. Support. I decided not to wait until when I might be able to cast the hundredth !vote after I saw Hey man im josh's entry. And then I had the edit conflict with Swatjester also saying that. They said everything I was going to say. Uncanny. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  92. Support per bonadea and Swatjester. Great answers to questions; valuable skills for this position. Graham87 (talk) 04:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  93. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  94. Support. Whyever not? Maproom (talk) 08:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  95. Support Thanks for volunteering! – DreamRimmer ■ 08:32, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  96. Support Took some time out of his day to help me as a newbie out with a translation, and did so with kindness and precision. His editing history suggests he approaches all discussions with those qualities, and will use the tools well. NovaHyperiontalk 08:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  97. Salvio giuliano 08:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  98. Sapphaline (talk) 09:51, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  99. —Kusma (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  100. Support - Trustworthy. --Rosiestep (talk) 10:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  101. Support Mox Eden (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  102. Support -been waiting on this one for a while. Eddie891 Talk Work 10:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  103. Support Toad would make an amazing admin. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 10:46, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  104. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 10:49, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  105. Support - wait, they weren't an admin? mwwv converse∫edits 11:33, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  106. Support An excellent attitude and very sensible. Pagliaccious (talk) 11:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  107. Support Only had positive interactions with them. The nominators' statements are quite convincing. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  108. how the hell did i miss this?? support, of course ... sawyer * any/all * talk 12:12, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  109. Support Incall talk 12:33, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  110. Support Just saw this Plutus 💬 mess — Fortune favors the curious 13:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  111. Support. Wherever I've seen them around, they've been consistently knowledgeable and a positive contributor. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  112. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  113. Support I can find multiple reasons to support and no real reason to oppose. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:52, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  114. Support seen them around, consistently helpful. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 14:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  115. Support. Seen them around, are helpful in general. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:28, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  116. Instant support. From what I've seen, Toadspike is a very methodical, competent, and patient editor who would be perfect for the mop and bucket! His language skills (which I am very impressed with, to be honest) could be of much use. I'd like to point out a perfect example of Toadspike's patience and argumentative skills, which is a discussion the RSP's entry of The Straits Times. He provided a very compelling and nuanced argument on all fronts, such as the ST's reliability and independence, as well as DUEWEIGHT aspects of local sources. Icepinner 14:34, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  117. Support pretty trusted user. Just a random Wikipedian(talk) 14:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  118. On content creation mentioned in the Neutral section, while there are no explicit GAs, from what I have seen of Toadspike's editing they are quite competent with a good understanding of sources and of curation questions. CMD (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  119. Support - looks qualifed to me. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  120. easy support. dbeef [talk] 15:14, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  121. Strong support Finally, Toadspike's at RFA! All the Best -- Chuck Talk 16:15, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  122. Support Good day—RetroCosmos talk 16:20, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  123. Support: Great active and trusted candidate! HwyNerd Mike (tokk) 16:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  124. ayup! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:53, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  125. Support: I don't see anything concerning or negative about the user. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 17:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  126. Yes, absolutely Star Mississippi 17:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  127. Support always a delightful voice to see at AfD. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 18:46, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  128. Support Candidate demonstrates reasonable competency. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:52, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  129. An RFA! I just kind of assumed RFAs had become obsolete. Seems like a wonderful candidate. No interesting drama, though; I'd suggest a 'Crat with courage snow close this early and flip the switch right now, just to stir something up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  130. Sure. EF5 19:09, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  131. Support without reservation. I've had positive interactions with the candidate, and mentioned offline just the other day that they're someone I wouldn't be surprised to see RfAing in the future. Glad to see that the future is now!
    Reviewing this page and their work reinforces my positive impression of them. Their demeanor is professional, as evidenced by interactions such as those referenced in Q3 (where I'm glad to see an actual example of a conflict rather than just platitudes). Experience closing difficult discussions evidences their ability to navigate difficult situations. The linked FAC/GAN reviews are thorough and reflect familiarity with content standards. Sdkb talk 19:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  132. Support strongly as someone who can clearly be trusted with the admin tools. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  133. Support. <Silly>It is autumn now. That means it is time for MtBotany to be drawing down sugars into his trunk and roots, not to be commenting on requests for Adminship. But since I'm busy with seeds and things someone else will have to complain about Toadspike never having created a plant article. The most important area of Wikipedia.</Silly> 🌿MtBotany (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
    Autumn in the Northern Hemisphere, yes. Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
    I've not been transplanted to the Southern Hemisphere, yet. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
  134. Support -- Euryalus (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  135. Support Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  136. Support, why not? I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 01:02, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
  137. Support - no concerns, well-known, good reputation. Bearian (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
  138. Support Per nomination. No red flags, has a clue, etc. - SchroCat (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
  139. Support ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 04:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
  140. Support Would make a great admin. Seanwk :) | Talk 05:38, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
  141. Support Passes my criteria, and I don't see any reason not to give them the mop. EggRoll97 (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
  142. Oppose on judgement grounds. User's judgement on when to go for RfA is clearly lacking, and betraying maybe much fear of hearing the community's praises. I want to see braver admins, for my part. JavaHurricane 10:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
    @JavaHurricane: There is a separate header for oppose votes below. Cheers! BD2412 T 13:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
    See below. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 14:07, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
    That's what I get for missing staff meetings. BD2412 T 14:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
    Since this has come up three separate times now, I hereby give this vote the official RfA-monitor seal of not actually being an oppose vote. This lofty and ancient power, which I definitely have as a monitor pursuant to mumble mumble mumble, is an important environmental safeguard to ensure protection for even the deadpannest, British-humor-est of joke opposes, preserving this endangered species' vital role in the RfA ecosystem. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 15:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  143. Why not? --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:01, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
  144. Support Only had positive interactions with you so far and am amazed with your dedication in some discussions Squawk7700 (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
  145. Support - I see no adminship impediments in this editor's history. BD2412 T 13:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
  146. Support ⇌ Synpath 15:05, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
  147. Support - I've had good interactions with Toadspike. A. B. talk --15:12, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
  148. Support. Content creation looks good despite some editors expressing concern there. Most Wikipedia articles don't go through any of the peer review processes. Some of the candidate's articles, like 5 Broadgate, look pretty well-developed. Also, even stubs can be beneficial when done well. Studies on how folks read Wikipedia show that for short articles, readers are more likely to follow links. And so, taking Alongshan virus as an example, the article gives a very brief description of the topic that will satisfy some readers and for people that want more, it cites 3 peer-reviewed open-access journal articles and a freely available overview for lay readers. This also serves the explicit function of stubs as a kind of seed article that grows into a more in-depth one. The current stub could become the lead of a longer article, and its sources could be used to flesh out body sections. Rjjiii (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
  149. 'Support' I recognize them from RMTR and appreciate their kind candor and thoughtful contributions. Thank you for volunteering ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
  150. Jianhui67 T★C 16:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
  151. Support Rzuwig► 18:13, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
  152. Mop emoji some good AfD stuff I saw. Conyo14 (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
  153. Support Judging from their history, I believe Toadspike is a level-headed contributor (dealing with controversy calmly) and will be an asset to Wikipedia as a sysop. Staraction (talk | contribs) 19:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
  154. Support. Certainly seems they would be a net positive with the tools. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
  155. Support: A very friendly, competent, experienced and thoughtful editor with whom I have interacted on Chinese topic AFDs. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 21:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
  156. Strong support - this nomination is clearly late by a few... years, but now that it is finally here, I can say that I have seen nothing but positive interactions and good work by the candidate. Brat Forelli🦊 21:15, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
  157. Support I think that his participation in areas such as AfD and NPP is good, and I think he would be a great admin. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 22:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
  158. Support No concerns. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
  159. Support No worries here, other than the delay in nominating. Ultraodan (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
  160. Support Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
  161. Support need I say more Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 03:17, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
  162. Support Toadspike since he is a contributor to Featured content, which more admins need to do in my view. 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 04:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
  163. Support. Every time I have encountered Toadspike I have found them to be a dedicated and consistently civil editor with a good understanding of P&Gs - all the traits of a good admin. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 11:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
  164. I notice that my essay was quoted upthread, and it says (and has done for years) : "I have seen this essay (and variations of it) be misinterpreted as "All admins must have multiple GAs / FAs / created xx articles to pass RfA", which is complete hogwash." and " don't even go that far – just some evidence that a candidate can evaluate multiple sources and write prose around it." so people complaining about a lack of GAs are somewhat wide of the mark in my view. Elsewhere, I see interactions like this, showing me where I've screwed up and how to fix things, which is exactly what I want to see in an administrator. Looking at the AfD stats, on the occasion their view doesn't match the final consensus, it's not based on lack of familiarity with policies. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GNU coding standards, which was only kept because people identified offline sources that a triage would not have unearthed. In short, I have no concerns. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:13, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
  165. Support Cabayi (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
  166. Support Thought he was an admin already! Toadspike is even keeled and respectful (unlike these violent spiked toads with bizarre-looking mustaches of thorns).Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
  167. Support Seems like the kind of guy you would think would be a sysop already. Toadspike meets my requirements for adminship. CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!) 21:56, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  168. Support - This is a no-brainer support from me. Toad has to be one of the most helpful and nicest people that I’ve ever met on here and I see no reason not to trust them with the mop 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:22, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
  169. Support looks solid to me.--Ideophagous (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
  170. Support - Seems fine. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
  171. 'Support' Shoe in, IMO Ryan shell (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
  172. Support Patient, competent, and trustworthy – hallmarks of the perfect candidate Nil🥝 23:06, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
  173. Support I am familiar with this candidate's work and have confidence they will do well as an administrator. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
  174. Support I was waiting for the answers to the optional questions before voting. The answers are completely in line with the preliminary assessment that they are an excellent addition to the mop-up crew. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
  175. Support. Great editor, great judgement, I've only had great interactions with Toadspike. The mop would be a great addition to their toolset. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
  176. Support - per a review of contributions and communications, I'm happy to support. I was particularly impressed by a complex discussion where consensus did not go Toadspike's way. They were polite and articulate through the process, exemplary. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:51, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
  177. Support - no substantive reason, although I see them around being helpful a lot. Just want to pile onto votes I trust a lot! ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 02:28, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
  178. Support: No qualms, rock solid candidate. Left guide (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
  179. Support Yes please. Soni (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
  180. Support without hesitation. I read the three articles that the candidate put forward as work to be proud of, and was impressed. I have an interest in mountain passes, by the way. Evidence indicates that the candidate has the temperament appropriate for an administrator. Cullen328 (talk) 05:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
  181. Support a positive editior in many areas, sure they will be a posive addition to the moppers. KylieTastic (talk) 10:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
  182. Support. An excellent choice. If I remember correctly, they have also done a fair bit of anti-vandalism work. Gommeh 📖   🎮 12:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
  183. Not seeing anything that would prevent me from Supporting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
  184. Support without any hesitation, and very glad to see it happening. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 13:31, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
  185. Strong support. One of my favorite commenters to read when I close AFD discussions because of the high quality insight. Malinaccier (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
  186. Support - no issues here ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:30, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
  187. Ed [talk] [OMT] 15:39, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
  188. btw, You are fluent in Chinese? That's cool. —— Eric Liu（Talk・Guestbook） 16:10, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
  189. Support Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
  190. Support Brilliant and methodical, awesome editor and candidate. Metaviva (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
  191. —Ingenuity (t • c) 20:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
  192. Support Happy Editing--IAmChaos 20:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
  193. Support David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
  194. Support. Everything looks good to me, and I can't find anything to fault. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
  195. Support. Superb candidate. Schwede66 21:17, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
  196. Support Read nomination and discussion; seems like a strong candidate and I don't have any concerns. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
  197. Support. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
  198. Support Aoba47 (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  199. Support- Absolutely. IMO, no way this candidate would break the project. Good Luck wielding the mop.   Aloha27  talk  02:19, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  200. Support – It's snowing, but I couldn't resist adding vote #200. Thanks for all your good work. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 05:12, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  201. Ophyrius (he/him
    T • C • G    ) 07:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  202. Support. I trust Toadspike. I've most often encountered him at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/China. At AfD, Toadspike has done excellent work rescuing articles and nominating others for deletion, always providing strong policy-researched rationales. I've admired his work in finding sources at Chinese and Swiss AfDs like 1, 2, and 3. Wikipedia needs more editors like Toadspike who are adept at finding non-English language sources for topics outside the English-speaking world. He is a friendly, kind editor with exactly the right temperament to become an admin. Cunard (talk) 09:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  203. Support This is one of those 'thought they were already an admin' cases Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 11:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  204. Support. --Werter1995 (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  205. I'm just going to offer my early congratulations so that I can pretend I'm actually early and not just late to the party as usual. Keep up the good work! Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  206. Support Nicest bandwagon I ever jumped onto. ☣︎ Hiobazard ☣︎ 15:22, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  207. Support - Has clue, always had a good experience with them, good closes. FOARP (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  208. Support. ✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 15:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  209. Support. denny vrandečić (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  210. Support: seems very capable Mgp28 (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  211. Support via this user's contributions to articles and AfD, and willingness to treat others with respect. --Habst (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  212. Support: I've interacted with Toadspike and trust he'll put the tools to good use. I'll also take this opportunity to express gratitude for his helping me with the German-language sourcing on Maria Stromberger. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  213. Support: Chipping in that this is another case where I'm surprised to learn they aren't an admin already. A valued contributior who will do good work with the mop. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:50, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  214. Sure, okay. DS (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  215. Support: Thanks for stepping up. Loopy30 (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  216. Support: Well-qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  217. Support and thanks for your work. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:17, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  218. Support Bright green support from RM and AfD experience. GTrang (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  219. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  220. Support Trustable user, would be a net benefit to Wikipedia. =JaventheAldericky= (Would you like to talk to me?) 07:46, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  221. Support: Constant high quality insight and contributions, glad to see them get the mop. Signed, Guessitsavis (she/they) Talk 12:04, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  222. Support: No obvious reason not to support. Does good and useful work. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:44, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  223. Support – I don’t think my vote's needed but I've seen him work! FaviFake (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  224. Support – Good candidate. Travellers & Tinkers (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  225. Pile on Support. Fully qualified. BusterD (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  226. Support Trustworthy user, will benefit the project with the tools. SpencerT•C 16:00, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  227. Support, this one's been a long time coming, glad to see it's finally here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:28, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  228. Support – I have no doubts he'll wield the mop well. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  229. Support No objections from me. DraconicDark (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  230. jp×g🗯️ 16:45, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  231. Support. Volten001 ☎ 17:37, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  232. Support Good editor, no concerns.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:50, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  233. Support Happy to support. Thank you for taking on the mop. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
    Support - in the strongest possible terms. Oops, voted twice. Bearian (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
    @Bearian: so strongly, in fact, that you're voting twice? :) Floquenbeam (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
    at least Bearian admitted it as a mistake Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
  234. Bearian level support and maybe a fraction more than the strongest possible terms. AFD stats are stellar and show a balance between the factions showing they are looking at each case rather than following an agenda. Spartaz Humbug! 20:01, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
    This is made funnier by the fact that Bearian voted twice. fanfanboy (blocktalk) 20:23, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  235. Support seems obvious. SportingFlyer T·C 20:54, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  236. Looks good to me! Ternera (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
  237. Support A bit late but this is a very easy support. At least I voted in time AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 01:59, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
  238. Support It's all been said above. Happy to add my name to the supporters. Donner60 (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
  239. good luck! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 09:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
  240. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:03, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
  241. Support. Lynch44 11:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
  242. Support. Another entry in the "Wait, You Weren't An Admin?" saga. 〜 Askarion ✉ 11:57, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
  243. Support I'm late to the party (as usual). I fully support Toadspike in this application. I'm happy with the answers and their work on Wikipedia. Knitsey (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
  244. Support We need more admins. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 15:17, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
    Never can have too many! Heck, why not make everyone an admin, even IPs![1] CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!) 15:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
  245. Support – Good record, good contributions, good attitude. Yue🌙 15:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
  1. Not enough evidence of being good at conflict resolution and related matters- and I think en wiki needs admins who are certainly good with that, with technical stuff being relatively less important. Very user otherwise though- would have voted yes if admin powers did not give them power directly over people. (I'm not going to change this vote, so I would rather not have replies trying to change my mine, please). HSLover/DWF (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
General comments
  • Just because there are no opposes yet doesn't mean we should start badgering the Neutral votes. Just an observation. Intothatdarkness 18:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
    I wouldn’t call a single comment disagreeing with my vote “badgering”, they’re simply someone who disagrees with my take, which is fine. EF5 18:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
    I politely pointed out that I think that EF5's bar is unnecessary. I still think it's unnecessary, and I would urge EF5 to rethink. All GA means is that one other editor thought you met the GACR for a particular article; it says nothing about one's broader grasp of PAGs. In any event Toadspike has brought several articles to DYK, which itself requires adequate knowledge of content PAGs. Finally, not every admin needs to be a master of content PAGs. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
    Exactly, it’s not badgering. EF5 22:20, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
    What you did was fine it was not badgering. GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Is this the longest time between RfA nominations since 2021 (maybe ever)? We didn't have one for almost six months. Of course, the reason is due to the new WP:ALECT process. JuniperChill (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
    After looking at all the data I could find, this seems to be the case at a whopping 162 days between individual RfA's (5 1⁄3 months), crazy! Kline • talk • contribs 21:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
    WP:BATON tracks [new] admins since August 2022 (so excluding reconfirmations)—and confirms both comments above. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
    I wonder if this is due to the two admin elections we have had in almost the same time period. Daniel Case (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah that is probably the reason why or at least a big factor. GothicGolem29 (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  • As someone who knows Toadspike off-wiki, I will abstain from casting a biased vote. However, I am happy to confirm that in-person too he is just as thoughtful, coolheaded, and committed as the people above make him out to be. Very glad to see him going for this! YuniToumei (talk) 07:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Enthusiastic support Excited to see what this administrator will accomplish! PurpleInvestments (talk) 01:06, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  • I like that you're a member of WP:GOCE and active as WP:NPP; both always show you are familiar with prose styling and other article policies. However, the amount of articles you've started is low (not that it's a bad thing!) and the majority are start or stub-class. I'd suggest getting a WP:GA to show that you are familiar with Wikipedia's core content policies. I'm not voting oppose because I recognize that you have a lot of experience in administrative areas, as outlined at the nom statement. If you need help with getting a GA outside of this RfA feel free to message me; I'd be glad to help. EF5 16:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
As someone who has a lot of GAs, FAs, and 4As under my belt, I don't think having a GA article is necessary to show sufficient experience with content PAGs. I try not to participate at RfAs, but I just wanted to note I think that this is an unnecessary bar and not a good reason to not support an otherwise qualified candidate. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
That's my personal bar, so we'll just agree-to-disagree. EF5 18:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
I’m not sure if this would at all help in your evaluation of skills but toad did aid me significantly in the nomination of List of chronic pain syndromes as a FL. While they were a reviewer here not a writer, the review they did: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of chronic pain syndromes/archive1 helps reassure me personally that they are competent in technically difficult fields. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 22:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
I’ll take a look in a little bit and reevaluate. EF5 22:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
@EF5, as an NPP coordinator, I feel it important to mention that prose styling is not a focus of ours. In addition, the amount of articles "created" is entirely irrelevant to one's content experience. I want to say I had 4 stubs and 2 lists when I made WP:RFX300. I'd also mention that 3 of the 5 people at RFX300 did not have a good article when they passed, myself included, so I resent the pseudo (bull shit) requirement of having a GA to be an administrator. It's not about checking a box, which people have historically opposed based on, it's about demonstrated experience in content areas. I'm not against opposes or neutrals, but I think they should be based on more than just checked boxes or articles created and good articles. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
I had originally split up GOCE and NPP when drafting up my vote but ended up lumping them together on accident. When I wake up tomorrow I’ll re-evaluate and see if I’ll change my vote. EF5 01:37, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Given I've changed my vote I'm bringing the replies to my original "neutral" down to this section instead of outright deleting them. EF5 19:09, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Just for clarity, my aim in my reply was to push back against the idea of checking boxes and that a good article is required for adminship. A good article has simply become the shortform for what people are actually seeking, demonstrated content experience. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Maybe we could even start recognising the diversity of different content based experience gained by creating articles, NPP work, and GAs. With GAs an editor gains experience with higher quality of articles, but without many, it's also going to be based on limited number of policies overall per topic. Whereas at NPP you can gain much broader experience that has to consider a lot more policy, based on diversity and quantity of topics dealt with which can feel like a never ending learning curve. For example GAs with no BLP experience demonstrates completely different experience than NPP work with BLP, while bringing a topic to GA in CTOP is also another level imo. As for creating articles, I also consider this the least relevant when most created are understandably stubs and starts. Likewise creating full articles from scratch is not easy either. It demonstrates an ability to dig deep on research to broaden content, but it doesn't show much more than that, while bringing one to GA is simply extra work. I say this as someone who has ticked all those aforementioned boxes and those boxes provide a different set of experiences. The difficulty is in the demonstration side; it's a lot easier to demonstrate articles created and topics bought to GA then say considerable contributions to CTOP or NPP reviews without a hundred diffs. Overall I believe CTOP/NPP experience is more relevant than article creation generally, the latter being a lot easier aside from formatting. CNC (talk) 01:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)


The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Toadspike&oldid=1315952448"