Note: Although this page is under extended confirmed protection, non-extended confirmed editors may still comment on individual requests, which are located on subpages of this page.
If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.
One trial run of an experimental process of administrator elections, an alternative type of RfA, took place in October 2024. Administrator elections were authorized permanently on a 5-month schedule in an RfC held in early 2025. The next administrator election will be scheduled soon; see Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections for further information.
About administrators
The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce community consensus and Arbitration Commitee decisions by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.
The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.
Nomination standards
The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).[1] However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
Nominations
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate, or added after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
Please do nottransclude the RfA page until after the nomination has been accepted by the candidate, and the page, and its questions, has been filled out to the candidate's satisfaction. Be aware that the process will start the moment the RfA is transcluded to this page.
All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with the extended confirmed right.[2] Other comments are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not administrators or extended confirmed may be moved to this section if mistakenly placed elsewhere.
If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".
There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.
The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.
Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.
In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.[3] In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.
In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".[4] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.
If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.
In the 2024 RfA review, the community authorized designated administrators and bureaucrats to act as monitors to moderate discussion at RfA. The monitors can either self-select when an RfA starts, or can be chosen ahead of time by the candidate privately. Monitors may not be involved with the candidate, may not nominate the candidate, may not !vote in the RfA, and may not close the RfA, although if the monitor is a bureaucrat they may participate in the RfA's bureaucrat discussion. In addition to normal moderation tools, monitors may remove !votes from the tally or from the discussion entirely at their discretion when the !vote contains significant policy violations that must be struck or otherwise redacted and provides no rational basis for its position – or when the comment itself is a blockable offense. The text of the !vote can still be struck and/or redacted as normal. Monitors are encouraged to review the RfA regularly. Admins and bureaucrats who are not monitors may still enforce user conduct policies and guidelines at RfA as normal.[5]
Rusalkii (talk·contribs) – Rusalkii has been doing unobtrusively excellent work on Wikipedia for more than four years, during which she has accumulated more than 30,000 edits. She has expanded and improved a number of articles, on topics such as a popular science book about dinosaurs, an African shrew, and a US Marine Corps mascot, and has a GA and 13 DYKs to her name. Rusalkii has also been a diligent participant at RfD – a perennially backlogged venue – and at AfC, where she will be able to make productive use of the admin tools. Equally to her credit, she has only 8 edits to the cesspool. Her talk page and AfC contributions evince helpfulness, CLUE, and patience in spades, and she would make a great addition to the administrator corps. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nomination statement
I am delighted to co-nominate Rusalkii for adminship. A bit more than three years ago, she and I were both starting out at AfC, where she was easily noticeable for her kind demeanour, her tendency to ask the questions we were all wondering about, and her readiness to help where where needed. Oh, and for her ruthless slaughtering of the backlog. (By the way, she wrote this handy explainer on sources for drafts.) I see that, since then, she's brought her humility, determination, and willingness to learn to other parts of the project, including NPP and COI edit requests. I'm confident that she'll approach unfamiliar admin tasks in the same way. We can always use more quick-study admins who are willing to admit that they don't know the answer, and anyone who can handle COI cases for a year without becoming the Joker absolutely has the right temperament. I hope you all agree. asilvering (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you both. I accept the nomination. I have never edited for pay, and have never had any other accounts. Rusalkii (talk) 06:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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'm active at RfD, which almost always has a large admin backlog. I've closed a few obvious "keeps", but anything where deletion is remotely on the table should be closed by someone with the ability to action that close, and I'd like to be able to do that. The tools can also help out at AfC, where I periodically need to speedy a draft for vandalism, copyvio, or other issues, or delete a redirect to make way for an incoming draft.
I also just have a tendency to see a backlog and get personally offended by it. That's how I started working in most of the areas I'm active in the first place. I expect I'll branch out into other admin works as I get more comfortable with the tools, learn the norms of those areas, and see more places in which I could be helpful.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think traditionally this is where I point to content I've written, but a lot of my work has been on various review process, from AfC to NPP to COI edit requests. It's difficult to point to any individual actions there: if you're doing it right, this kind of review can blend into the background. Once, however, someone whose AfC draft I left some comments on (I think it was a decline, even!) told me that "In one year of editing Wikipedia, your feedback has been the most detailed and helpful to improve". It's very, very easy in all these review processes to forget that you are the face of Wikipedia for people who have never heard of any of these acronyms and ideas that are being thrown at them, and I sincerely hope that this person is at least somewhat representative of the impact that I have in that role.
A more traditional answer is Johnlock. I really enjoyed getting to work on this kind of weird and traditionally "unencyclopedic" topic where it turns out there were actually quite a few strong academic sources. Collaborating with my GA reviewer DaniloDaysOfOurLives and Gråbergs Gråa Sång helped make the article much stronger. I'm also rather fond of Pulaski's Masterpiece, a fun little article about a dog I stumbled on while doing research for something tangentially related. It may not be my most exhaustive work, but it's my most popular DYK to date (crime sells!).
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: Overall, I tend to avoid stressful areas: Wikipedia is a hobby, and if you're regularly upset by it that's a sign that something is going wrong. If I notice myself getting stressed by some person or process, I drop that and go somewhere else: there's a lot of encyclopedia and there's no need to keep working at things that are unpleasant to you. Occasionally I do end up in a situation where I don't feel like I can easily leave it, whether because I think there's a really serious issue that no one else is aware of, or because I'm already committed in a way where I can't just bow out.
In one such conflict, once I noticed that I was really starting to take it personally, I tried taking at least an hour before responding to any message, not just dashing off the first satisfying-sounding thing I could think of. I think it's really important to notice the urge to say something pointed or that'll-show-them: that's very rarely constructive and tends to escalate rather than calm down issues, and I find if I take some time on my reply I'm much more likely to avoid that and end up actually taking into account their perspective on the issue. A useful question here is "what if they were right?". I also find it helpful to try to get an outside perspective relatively quickly, before a conflict starts going in circles and getting more acrimonious.
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.
4. Are there any areas of admin work you don't plan to get involved in, due to inexperience or lack of interest? If you later decided to volunteer in those areas, how would you ensure you have the necessary knowledge and skills?
A: There's nothing I'm absolutely sure I'll never do - if you'd asked me a year ago if I'd get into answering COI edit requests I would've said absolutely not - but there's plenty of areas I don't have any current plans to participate in and would need a lot of time to feel comfortable in. Some examples off the top of my head of areas I don't expect to branch out to are WP:CfD, WP:SPI, and DYK admin work. If I did plan to get into them I'd start by carefully reading the relevant policies, getting active in the area without doing anything that requires the tools, watch the existing admins working in that area, and then start on the most straightforward admin tasks and work my way up. For DYK, for instance, I've already nominated some hooks, so I'd probably start with reading the set prep guides, prepare some sets for others to promote, and then work my way up to promoting the sets myself when I feel like I understand the how things work.
5. As an AFC reviewer, do you reject or decline AI-generated articles and why?
A: Decline. In my view, rejects are for cases where it's clear the submitter is not going to improve the article further. Unless I'm very, very confident that a subject isn't notable or the submitter is obviously trolling, I will always decline the first time to give them a chance to improve. For an AI generated article, this might require starting completely from scratch, but there's still no need to bite them with the giant stop sign instead of explaining how to fix the issue.
6. Aside from the articles you've mentioned above, what topics of Wikipedia do you prefer to edit?
A: Content-wise, I don't think of myself as having much of a topic preference, but empirically I have tended to work on dog breeds and other dog related subjects, fandom-related topics, and most recently various obscure species stubs. I have some vague aspirations of branching out to history, which I enjoy, but have edited mostly superficially in that area. Otherwise, I gnome (I like adding short descriptions, deorphaning articles, and sourcing completely unrefrenced articles), and in addition to the backend work I talked about above I am a redirect patroller, do recent changes patrolling when I'm on mobile, and sometimes just bounce around random articles fixing minor issues as I notice them.
7. Further, what topics/administrative areas would you feel uncomfortable or not touch with a ten-foot pole?
A: Well, as I said above there's nothing I'm absolutely confident I'm not going to touch, but some areas I would be surprised to find myself working in are SPI, CCI, and DYK admin work.
7. Can you point me to somewhere where you've defended either content you've written or a policy-based decision you've made? (Examples might include an AfD of an article you wrote or a challenged RfC close but really I'm looking for anything where you've had to defend a decision on a policy basis)
A: The first one that comes to mind is this discussion at Talk:Johnlock#Not sure about these sources. I used a Master's thesis as a source and another editor pushed back on it. I felt the source was usable in this case because it had been cited in several other works (not that many numerically, but it's a very small field), which WP:SCHOLARSHIP calls out as an important criteria for when theses are more likely to be reliable.
Edit summary usage for Rusalkii can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review her 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.
Crossed paths with her on-Wiki yesterday and was literally thinking "how isn't she already an admin?" Then saw that this was in the works and got very happy. Always a pleasure to see her around, please count me in as very happy to support. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋19:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Strikes me as a well-rounded editor with sound content, maintenance, and technical experience. I can't help but also appreciate the species articles. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know them mostly through their solid work at AfC and the related help desk. Knows their stuff, overall good egg, no concerns. S0091 (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Besides my trust in the nominators, she has a broad range of experience and content creation, but the most important thing that she has is a willingness to accept correction, as evidenced by her talk page. ❤HistoryTheorist❤22:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Have seen her around. I recall a recent AfD where she went the extra mile to evaluate sources carefully, then revisited conclusions as new sources became available. Perceptive and communicative -- just what we want in an admin. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not somebody I've come across before, but I did a look through their contributions and everything looks fine to me. I'm particularly impressed with the cheat sheet for AfC sources and the patience they had reviewing FloridaArmy's AfC submissions, which seem to have been a long-time controversial subject. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:16, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I am impressed. A clearly competent and well-rounded editor. And their talk page replies and discussions have remained the same -- from their first editing day through today -- courteous, informative, good-humored and a willingness to learn or to accept a possible mistake. Rusalkii will do well as an Admin. — CactusWriter (talk)14:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Someone with the maturity to not only own up to their mistakes, but to do it in the RFA request, is definitely deserving of the mop -- Grapefanatic (Talk) 17:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the nominee seems trustworthy and I have no concerns. Other than her avoidance of the cesspool, which I totally get, but in all seriousness the nominee isn't a jerk, has a clue (and sufficient content-creation and administrative experience), and is willing to change her viewpoint and admit mistakes. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support As Ritchie333 noted, the source cheatsheet Rusalkii has shows excellent working knowledge about differentiating notability from mere ref-bombing. I feel almost silly voting, as this is already a pretty lop-sided polling result, but the African ginger comment cemented my vote. As much for the personality shown as the support of plants. — rsjaffe🗣️21:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. An excellent candidate: smart and articulate, knows her way around content expectations, and understands dispute resolution without wasting time acting as a wannabe. While I'm here, a suggestion to her and to future candidates: when you mention past disputes in answering Q3, provide a blue link or a diff, so other editors can look at it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Useful, alert, responsive, polite - the sort of person we want as an admin. I like to look at a candidate's talkpages, especially the early days, to see what sort of issues come up, and how they are dealt with - I like the professional way Rusalkii dealt with the early comments: User_talk:Rusalkii/Archives/2021/November - helpful, calm, polite, informative, assured. It's a yes from me. SilkTork (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Post nubila Phoebus, in the immediate wake of two RFAs that have not been shining (ahem) moments for this process. Here there is no doubt apparent on the community's part. I do not appear to have interacted with this editor much, so I can't say anything from personal experience. But many other people I trust and respect are here vouching for her. And it will certainly be nice to have yet another Russian-fluent admin in the ranks to share the burden of taking abuse like this. Daniel Case (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. She has helped handle a few COI requests for my articles. Hope these new rights will help her perform duties even better esp in COI.- ImcdcContact07:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to my question was almost exactly what I was looking for. It shows a keen understanding of both the letter and spirit of policies and guidelines, and the ability to cooly explain a decision. That's why prospective admins benefit from some involvement with the encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?18:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think a lack of edits to ANI is necessarily a good attribute for an admin, but as the candidate is not an admin yet, that may change going forward. I'm not seeing any concerning behavior, and there seems to be good communication by the candidate, which is one of the most important attributes for me. – notwally (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Clueful, thoughtful, good communication, well-rounded. As others have previously said "no concerns". Happily support. - Shearonink (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I've had to clean up their RfD nomination formattings more than I care to remember. Editor also has a bit of a repetitive habit of not signing their comments. It's enough for me to not support, but too pedantic for me to oppose. Steel1943 (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a point against the nominee but a response to the nomination statement: it rubs me the wrong way when someone touts "hasn't edited ANI" as a virtue, because it can just as easily mean "lets problems fester instead of addressing them, and avoids standing up for editors who are being bit". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸20:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote that, and I'll take responsibility for it. You are correct that ANI is a necessary evil: we need a generic place to go for administrator attention. It's also true that the average non-administrator's comment on a topic they are uninvolved in isn't very helpful. There is a very good reason why the community has historically been disapproving of non-admin clerking at ANI, and of too much time at the "drama boards" in a candidate for adminship. Unless I see evidence of a candidate actively avoiding a problem that needed to go to AN/ANI, I will continue to see it as evidence that they are on Wikipedia for the right reasons, and therefore as a strong positive. I could perhaps have been less flippant about it, but after all if there's one thing Wikipedians agree on, it's the unpleasantness of ANI. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly second that - many times what makes a conflict harder to resolve is not those who start it, but when others get involved. In general, I think we should welcome those that demonstrate a capacity to deescalate, rather than rush into the breach. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is preserved as a request for adminship that has been placed on hold by a bureaucrat pending a decision as to the outcome. Please do not modify the text. The result of the discussion will be posted soon.
EggRoll97 (talk·contribs) – Hello everyone. I'm EggRoll97. As you may notice at the top, I'll come right out of the gate, this is my second run. I probably should have put more thought into AELECT, and it's pretty clear with some reflection that my nomination could've used some work back then.
I present myself to the community today willing to work on the "backroom" areas. I've found myself to be a bit of a gnomish type of person, enjoying smaller work in the background. I don't have significant content creation, and in fact, the work I'd claim is Contraband Police. I'd say my better contributions to the encyclopedia includes my work in the less well-known areas.
As for those areas, I am an edit filter manager, having been granted those rights in this discussion at the edit filter noticeboard by community consensus, and have the global variant of edit filter helper. I am one of the few who involves myself in the requests for page importation, and am the sole non-admin transwiki importer. I also nominally am involved with WP:ACC on a fairly regular basis. This candidacy is far more of a "if you'll have me, I volunteer". My uses for the tools would likely be fairly non-specific, just helping out anywhere I can, though more likely still gnoming away. Just to close out, thank you in advance to everyone who involves themselves in this process. I do not have any alternative accounts and I have never edited for pay. EggRoll97(talk) 14:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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: To put it fairly simply, just to help out anywhere I might be needed. I said this pretty much exactly in the nomination statement, but I'm a gnome at heart. I've dipped my toe into some requests in a number of places, and have found a few areas where I can confidently say I enjoy being in. I've grounded myself mainly in edit filter work and some occasional transwiki work, and I've found that I like it.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I would have to say without hesitation my edit filter contributions, the log of which can be found in this log page. I take pride in fixing filters tripping false positives, and in dealing with some requests for new edit filters, to combat ongoing vandalism. These contributions are where I believe I can see the most direct impact on the encyclopedia, and thus are the ones I take the most pride in.
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 recall any significant conflicts with anyone necessarily. I generally find that cooler heads tend to prevail when conflict arises, and from occasional observations of conflict on the site, it does appear I'd be correct in thinking that, seeing as how often a polite response can sway other's opinion.
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.
4. In August 2023, you found text you had believed to be copied from an external site and requested the page be deleted. The article creator removed the tag, and provided evidence [1][2] that the external site had copied from Wikipedia, not the other way around (though there was a WP:CWW issue, that you didn't spot). You edit-warred the copyvio tags back on, repeatedly refused to discuss the issue with them, just told the other editor that they weren't allowed to remove the tag because they were not an administrator[3]. How would you deal with such a situation as an administrator? (with three edits, this remains one of your topmost edit pages, btw[4])
A: My memory is slightly foggy from that far back, but I would imagine my original thinking is that the page's creator is removing a copyvio template. I don't deal much with copyright problems anymore (at least not with CopyPatrol, this kind of incident is what sours my experience with it). As for how I would react if I was an uninvolved administrator, none of the edits from me or the other user violated 3RR, so the only thing remaining to be dealt with would be the copyvio template, which nowadays I would currently be likely to leave for an administrator more experienced in copyright. I'll take the trout for what I admit was a bad way to respond to that.
Follow up: Sorry, could have been more clearer with what I was looking for - if you take an administrative action and you're questioned, and the person provides evidence that you might have made a mistake (but maybe the person questioning you is inexperienced and doesn't know the perfectly correct WikiWay to ask, or inadvertently breaks another, more minor rule in the process), how would you respond? Your answer to Q3 doesn't really go into this, so the example I have above (and another, slightly older one where you re-introduce incorrect information about a living person solely because the person who corrected it had a COI, not that it was unsourced or non-NPOV[5][6]) are the only things I can assess, I'm afraid. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋17:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up answer: Apologies, I didn't read it that way originally. If you'll indulge me in a bit of a story of sorts, my reaction to being questioned about actions I've made has definitely changed (I think for the better, probably) ever since I began using the edit filter manager right. I quickly realized how much different it was to be making a decision that someone couldn't just revert easily. Hell, my first edit filter modification as an EFM (found in this filter history entry) had me worrying for around 20 minutes and double-checking everything in detail. I was worried I would make a major mistake and would be asked to justify it. A few months go by, and I notice I've stopped worrying so much. In short, I definitely would respond a lot better than I did in 2023. For something more recent, I've had some of my gaffes pointed out on my talk page, for example, in this thread in my talk page archives.
5. What did you learn from your first run at the RfA process?
A: I definitely got a good try of RfA, and my responses to the three default questions were pretty lacking. Hindsight is everything, after all. I think the biggest thing my first run gave me for this time around is a good foundation which I was able to look back at and see "what could I do better?".
6. You ran without a nominator in the election, and you're running again without a nominator in this RfA. Can you discuss your reasoning on this decision?
A: I chose to run without a nominator in the election because it was more of a "tossed my hat in the ring" type of decision to run. Now, I've ran without a nominator again, which might be somewhat of an unwise decision. On the other hand, I wasn't exactly sure who would be willing to nominate. I haven't received any offers of nomination as far as I can remember, and it felt somewhat strange to me not to describe my contributions myself. I think nominators are a great asset, but self-nominations also provide a chance to explain one's contributions solely on their own. It's for that reason that I self-nominated.
7. I understand from your Q1 answer that this may be difficult to predict, but do you have in mind any specific examples of how the admin toolset would augment your editing? Are there any particular administrative backlogs that you anticipate looking into at least to start?
A: I didn't specify this in Q1, though this question was one I was anticipating and hoping for. Past my current work, I've also looked at requests for unblock a bit, and I think I'd want to slowly get into that. While I can't do much as a non-admin, I firmly believe in blocks being lifted once the user in question has demonstrated they aren't going to repeat whatever behavior got them blocked in the first place. There's nuance involved, but as a general rule that seems to be the logical approach towards unblocks. Especially with such a lengthy backlog, I would really want to get involved in shortening the amount in there if possible.
8. You say in your request that you will "help out where needed". Since some of the main tasks that admins must perform include processing CSDs, closing AfD discussions, and resolving content disputes, I'm concerned that after you were advised in your AELECT page that you had only a 50% AfD match rate, and that has not significantly changed in the months since with only two additional !votes. In your CSD log, you’ve had five entries since AELECT and I don't see much other content work even after multiple editors left feedback that you should focus on that to have a better chance at a future AELECT run or RfA. As administrators are often expected to try and listen to feedback from others, do you think you have adequately resolved the concerns that other people may have about your candidacy?
A: Respectfully, I wouldn't say that every administrator engages in any or even all of those tasks. There are plenty who do good work even outside of those areas, and of the three areas you listed, I wouldn't necessarily say any are in a dire need of my help. CSDs aren't backlogged at the time of writing (I'm actually surprised there's 40 in there), AfD is easily dealt with during a day or so of when the nomination is expected to be closed, and content dispute resolution is far outside the level of the backrooms.
9. Do you plan to complete history merges (whether as part of an import or otherwise)?
A: It's not something that's necessarily backlogged, but it is something I've looked at before with some interest. I feel fairly confident in my ability to do a simple cut-and-paste move fix, but I don't see myself jumping right into complex history merging without much more experience in the area.
10. The only admin task you've actually said you'd be interested in is unblocking users, because you wish toget involved in shortening the amount in there. Given your lack of experience with the encyclopedia half of Wikipedia, and the number of good-faith users blocked for things like copyright issues, POV issues, source misrepresentation, source-text integrity issues, tone issues, ect., and given that blocks for those reason tend to be the ones that linger in CAT:RFU the longest, how do you believe you're qualified to judge when blocks for those issues are no longer preventative?
A: I will add there is more than just unblocks, though yes, that is the only thing I've explicitly stated, and I likely should have given some more examples, in that parts of the administrator toolset (such as the three bundled viewdeleted rights) would also be helpful in my current areas of work. Other miscellaneous rights come in handy as well, such as the editinterface right, which would allow me to create custom edit filter messages for disallow and warn actions without needing an edit request. Of course, that's more of a tangent on how I should have elaborated more above, so to answer your actual question you posed about unblocking, I think many editors could evaluate an unblock request based on already-specified issues with one's contributions, even without necessarily having content experience. For example, I could easily check through a user's contributions and find what got them blocked in the first place, and given the blocking administrator would have presumably already listed the reason for the block, it's not like I would need to be intimately familiar with content to find the reasoning and the edits in question. From there, it's really more of a question of whether the user is going to repeat what got them blocked in the first place, and I maintain that the answer to that question is always fairly subjective in an unblock request. It is, after all, dependent on the judgement of the reviewing administrator. If it's not necessarily clear, discussing concerns with the blocked user in question and the blocking administrator is always an option. On a bit of a side note, I'm not sure I necessarily see a lot of blocks for the reasons you've mentioned in the unblock request queue. Looking at CAT:RFU at the moment, I see a disruptive editing block which, granted, is about content disruption. Next, there's a sockpuppetry block, a spam block, and then following those are a mixture of sockpuppetry blocks, spam blocks, and disruptive editing blocks. I feel fairly confident that there would always be somewhere in CFU that I could help out.
Follow up Sorry, I really could have been clearer again - by "qualified", I meant "what sort of experience do you have that you think would help you determine whether somebody is 'going to repeat what got them blocked in the first place'". GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋22:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up answer: I think a lot of it becomes a judgement call. I have some experience with edit filters and such, and that definitely has given me the ability to see patterns in behavior that would lead to someone being blocked again. Overall though, I would think the experience comes from getting into unblock reviewing, rather than necessarily anything else. Admins who actively review unblocks surely have honed their ability fairly well to determine the answer to "will this user repeat the pattern of behavior that landed them in this block in the first place".
11. This question is about G11. What is your general philosophy as to whether pages that are heavily promotional but may have some encyclopedic content should be deleted as G11, as opposed to retained but tagged, and should a different standard be applied to pages in article space and to pages in draft space?
A: The question you raise would suggest there is some notability in the subject of the article, considering you stated the theoretical page in question would have some encyclopedic content, which I read as meaning it includes some form of sourcing and nobility. In this case, it would seem like the encyclopedia would benefit from a page on the subject, even if the original attempt is mostly promotional. The promotional content in this hypothetical page seems fairly straight-forward to remove, and would need some re-writing. As for the different standard part of your question, I think there probably should be. From a practical standpoint, a mainspace article is indexed in search engines, very publicly visible, and will often show up as the first result when searching the name of the article, and thus it becomes important to keep promotional content out of an indexed article. In draft space, though, the article is generally not indexed, and the article is generally only seen by a select few. In draft space, removing the promotional material and leaving a quick note could often suffice, while in mainspace, the same approach may not work, and a move to draftspace (if appropriate) or deletion through AfD or PROD may be more of an appropriate measure, depending on the amount of content that is promotional in nature.
12. In a previous response, you stated that you're interested in helping with the unblock backlog. As someone active in that area, I'm curious about your existing experience, given that non-admins are welcome to help--they just can't make any final decisions. Have you been involved in any unblock discussions?
A: I certainly seem to remember being involved in a few (probably buried in my user talk contributions by now), though I never necessarily got the feeling that any comment I made swayed the decision either way, or did much more than just add bytes to a page. The instructions at CAT:RFU and on the unblock request template only mention administrators as well, so after a few runs of this, I didn't particularly take part in a lot of them, no. I've opined a few times on AN about bans, but those are certainly generally more cursory reviews than anything indicative of the care I would be putting into an unblock request. It is nice to hear that comments from non-admins are more welcome than I thought (certainly something I would want to take into account if I was a reviewing administrator), and I think regardless of the outcome of this RfA, I'll see at some point if the wording at CAT:RFU can be improved a bit to note that community input is encouraged.
A: I don't think there's any measure of edits that can define whether someone is active enough, absent the standards approved by the community at WP:INACTIVITY, and even the smallest edit is still a use of volunteer time on keeping the encyclopedia running. I don't think it's inappropriate to be below any specific threshold, no.
14. Suppose a reliable source reports the death of a minor but notable politician. Three weeks later, a newish editor with a recent uw-unsourced4 warning adds information about a sex scandal to the politicitian's article and cites a TMZ article from a few years ago. The claim is stated in the Wikipedia article as a fact and is not attributed except for the citation at the end of the sentence. Elsewhere on the internet, the claim is repeated by The Washington Times, as well as by a few patently unreliable tabloids. What is one good course of action that an admin could take upon seeing this edit?
A: The unsourced warning is concerning, though not necessarily indicative of whether the user simply made edits without any sources at all, or whether there's something else going on (given uw-unsourced is used for no sources at all as well as poor sourcing, and which circumstance this is would be something I would be able to check in a non-hypothetical situation). The user does appear to be making an effort to source the added claim, and WP:TMZ tells us Although TMZ is cited by reliable sources, most editors consider TMZ a low-quality source and prefer more reliable sources when available. The Washington Times (I almost read it as the Post, two very different sources) is listed as no consensus, but the closing statement does tell us that The Washington Times should generally not be used for contentious claims, especially about living persons. The tabloids clearly wouldn't be any better. Given the problems with TMZ, and that the subject is a living person, I would side with reverting the edit here, and attempting discussion with the user on their talk page regarding concerns about their sourcing in a BLP. Even with the uw-unsourced 4th warning, this doesn't scream bad faith immediately, and they appear to be citing at worst a questionable source. If the user continues past this with problems regarding sourcing, that would probably be where a short block is warranted to prevent disruption.
15. In light of the themes of the oppose !votes, I think another question about the use of admin powers in a hypothetical situation (though one that, like Q14 above, is entirely plausible and has probably actually occurred) is warranted:
You are, let's say, reviewing a report at WP:ANEW filed by an IP user against an established editor who has been around long enough to be extended-confirmed. The IP had added to an article with no BLP implications, less than 24 hours before the report, a fact sourced to some blog whose authorship is unclear and apparently unrelated to the article. They were promptly reverted by the established editor. This repeated itself twice in the next few hours, with the edit summaries growing confrontational but with no warnings left on the IP's talk page, and the established editor threatening to report the IP, but then reverting a fourth time. The "discussion" continues under the report, with the established editor pointing out several times that the IP didn't use a reliable source, so there.
How might you respond?
A: In this hypothetical, the established editor is in breach of 3RR, which is treated as a bright-line rule, absent an exception. In this case, though, no exception in WP:3RRNO appears to qualify. If the article had BLP implications, it would possibly be reasonable enough to excuse a fourth revert, even if ill-advised, to ensure quality sourcing for contentious claims about living persons. However, you have stated the article in question does not have BLP implications, and so that exception is irrelevant in this case. It is also not obvious vandalism or unambiguous spam, the two other exceptions that could be most likely to apply to this, as the IP is making a content addition with a source in what seems to be good faith. Assuming no other violations previously, the established editor should be blocked for a short time, which WP:3RR suggests should be at least a duration of 24 hours. If previous violations exist, blocks can increase in length or become an indefinite block.
16. How did the feedback in your participation in the first AELECT better prepare you for this standalone RfA process, if at all?
A: In the AELECT process, I don't think it prepared me for RfA, honestly. There's some feedback, but not a lot overall. Feedback at my AELECT page included declined speedy deletions, a comment about my AfD match rate, and a comment about GA reviews, as well as a comment overall about the overall nomination itself. The feedback at AELECT was definitely far less than at RfA, and it definitely drove me to run the gauntlet in a standalone RfA instead, which I think was a good decision overall, given a lot more feedback was presented than in AELECT.
17. How did the feedback in this current RfA process better prepare you for your next run, if at all?
A: I'm not sure whether I plan to make another run after this RfA. The feedback from opposers, especially opposers whose judgement I personally trust, was a combination of feedback I expected, and feedback I didn't. Concerns about hat-collecting were some of those that I didn't expect to be raised. If I was to run again, I don't think it would be sans nominator. Just to close out the answer to this question, which I'll admit, is sort of hard to answer before the RfA is closed, I want to just take a small amount of space to thank those in all three sections for taking the time to raise a lot of well-thought-out points in either direction, and definitely the oppose and neutral sections, for pointing out some new things I wouldn't have even thought about in my own evaluation of myself, like temperament.
Edit summary usage for EggRoll97 can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their 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. I've found them to be helpful and clueful whenever we've crossed paths. Supported them in AELECT and am happy to support again. Spicy (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. EFM is no small feat; there is a reason it is not included in the default toolkit for adminship. As for edit count, 0xDeadbeef seems to have been a great admin, and we were dealing with similar concerns then about their supposed lack of edits. I would consider whether 10,000 edits actually means something, or if it's a random number we came up with and decided it meant something. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)18:02, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still support. AFD is spotty, but AFD isn't everything. Content creation is spotty, but content creation isn't everything. I also hold the endorsements of Suffusion of Yellow and 0xDeadbeef in high regard (in general, but in particular this instance). The former is the site expert on edit filters; the latter had an almost identical RfA portfolio and has been a fantastic admin. (I will add that I am pleased only one editor has brought up the fabled 10,000 edit count in opposition to this candidacy.) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)01:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No Big Deal!!! Trusted editor and learns from mistakes, Support (10K edits is an arbitrary bar, and some intensive AWB sessions could fix that without making the editor more experienced) --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 18:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support EFM is a kinda auto support. They are trusted with tools that aren't in your default mop toolkit. They will fare good. — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Back at AELECT, I wasn't quite sure if they had the experience. We're a few months further along, and some more time with EHF under the belt, so happy to support. Answers to question show the maturity I'm after in an RfA candidate. I do want to note my accessibility pet peeve: don't hide links behind the word "here" (in the spirit of WP:EGG). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, it's been a bad habit of mine. I've done some fixing on the "here"s present in the RfA in this edit diff, which should fix all of them, if I'm reading EGG correctly. EggRoll97(talk) 19:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is at best going to a cratchat, so reaffirming. I continue to not care about content, for reasons I've stated in like 10 different places. Also don't care about edit count. I trust him to have an acceptable understanding of admin tools and to not dive deep into areas he doesn't understand. Cheers, charlotte👸♥07:06, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The candidate has a clearly articulated need for the tools, and appears receptive and open to feedback and ongoing learning (the faulty G5 nominations flagged during AELECT have not been repeated), and appears unlikely to dive into areas lacking expertise without getting up to speed first. If they'd said they wanted to work at AfD, I'd look more askance, but they don't at present and are correct that most XfDs are not experiencing significant backlogs. A lack of content creation is not a problem for a gnome who helps with the back end of the project's functionality. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think a lack of content experience is a dealbreaker for admins who are focused on behind-the-scenes work; and this candidate seems more than qualified from their experience in that department. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Look, this isn't the strongest candidacy ever. The article they list as their best contribution is admittedly lacking. But the answers to questions are generally adequate, especially Q8, Q7, and the last part of Q6. I like that they are willing to stand up for their ideals and vision of what an admin should to. Their conflict resolution skills (Q4) may not have been the best, but seem to have since improved. Back at AELECT, though I chose to abstain, my notes say "but they have a clue". This impression has not changed. Toadspike[Talk]11:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - WP:NOBIGDEAL. Has done fiddly work in the past to help the Wiki and wants to do more. As Toadspike said, not a perfect candidate, but would be a net positive. As someone whose RfA passed largely on the basis of being a "content" editor, I will never understand why so many view it as a prerequisite. Paper encyclopedias require plenty of people who don't do the actual writing - spell checkers and fact checkers and typesetters and printers. Is it so surprising that the world's foremost digital encyclopedia has needs that go beyond writing content as well? If someone wants to focus on behind the scenes work, more power to 'em. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I'm not the kind of person who demands tons of content creation from admin candidates, for roughly the same reason as Ganesha811 above. I am a little concerned about the poor quality of their "best content creation" article, but I still believe that they will be a net positive, and I liked their answer to Q7. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support If anything Admins should NOT be major content creators. Doing Admin tasks are going to take up a huge amount of time and it means they will be retiring from content creation. Yes, content creation is the reason for Wikipedia to exist, but we need all different types of editors to make Wikipedia work. As a major content creator, I say with whatever "gravitas" that this gives editors like me, Admins do not need to have a content creation history to be good Admins. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From my personal experience, admin tasks are far easier than creating good content. As a basic heuristic, I could improve an article to GA in about a week if I had all the sources available. In the same time, I could close about 100 AfDs. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Too many admins have demonstrated the opposite. If admin tasks had to be separate from content creation, then WMF could do all the admin. But the way it is, I cannot get through even the smallest of articles without the admin toolkit. Trying to create content without being an admin is a real pain. Hawkeye7(discuss)07:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I voted for EggRoll97 in the elections last fall, and I’m !voting now. I posted a message on their Talk page explaining why:
I voted for you. I don't share the emphasis on content creation that seems to run through a lot of the comments about admin selection. We can't create content without people running the system, behind the scenes, and who don't get much recognition. When I read your candidate statement, I said to myself "What the heck is edit filtering?" So I followed the links you gave about your activity and thought "this is something I didn't know about, and it's important". We need admins who know about the stuff that most of us don’t know about! Good luck! 🤞 Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It will improve the encyclopedia having them as a back of office admin. I understand those who want more content creation - God knows they probably opposed my RFAs too - but I do think it is possible to be a good admin without that experience, and I think ER97 has shown that this outcome is very likely in their case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not much significant content, but Gnomes do great work behind the scenes. That, coupled with their answer to question 3 and 7 swayed me. The candidate gets it! It is always about the spirit and vision of the project, not power. They would make a brilliant Admin and I wish them all the best. Tamsier (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support If they can do a lot to help the project (spoiler, it's true) and will benefit with the mop, then less content creation should never be a blocker for adminship. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>07:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I would want to se more content creation, for sure, and for that reason this is a weak support. But in every other way it's great to see EggRoll here, showing that they weren't put off by the experimental Wikipedia:Administrator elections failing to work for them. When I see them comment on something on the boards, I always expect independent and mature judgment. What EggRoll does with edit filters goes way over my head, but I will trust other commenters here that they're good at it, and I can figure for myself that it's important work. Also my usual plus points for the self-nom: self-nominations show an appropriate confidence, which is a good thing for an admin, who should ideally not lean on illustrious oldtimers but be prepared to rely on themselves even when that's lonely. Be a grown-up, write your own nomination! (I realize that in the special case of the other RFA that is up together with this, an experienced nominator could probably have helped.) Bishonen | tålk09:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Support - I appreciate this editor's Gnomish work and also as an edit filter manager. This editor seems to have a clue and also has good communication skills. I hope the editor will please take into account, moving forward, the community's requests to do more content creation. - tucoxn\talk10:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The lack of content creation isn't a major dealbreaker for me – while certainly preferable, I don't think we should expect admin candidates to have over-the-top qualifications in every area at once. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support EggRoll97 is clearly qualified for adminship through their extensive work as an edit-filter-manager, a role holds admin-level responsibility. One typo and you could accidentally block all of Wikipedia. This candidate has already been trusted with editing filters that block vandalism and enforce consensus from RSN. Their year-long contributions in this high-risk area outweighs the isolated diffs and misjudgments cited by the oppose camp, many of which are just restoring false positives caught in the filters. Sure, content creation isn’t their strong suit, but as Chaotic Enby said, admins don’t need to be superhuman and have impressive statistics in every area of Wikipedia. Given their strengths elsewhere, I trust them to handle content-adjacent work responsibly, ask when unsure, and avoid unnecessary drama. Sohom (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I had my doubts during AELECT but have been swayed by the numerous times I've seen EggRoll97 helpfully contributing to discussions and making improvements in small ways (as well as all the changes on the back-end). -- Reconrabbit15:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Something has felt slightly off about this candidacy for a while (I'm not sure what), but if the only substantive concerns people bring up are lack of content creation and lack of a clear need for the tools then I'm not worried by either of those as it stands so I guess I support. * Pppery *it has begun...19:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Lack of content creation does not mean an editor will not be a net positive with the mop. We need a lot more gnomish admins who are more than willing to take on the less flashy behind-the-scenes work, and EggRoll97 seems like the epitome of a gnomish non-admin deserving of our trust. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk)21:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wikipedia needs more admins, this person seems to be doing good work in obscure places like the edit filter and has openly said they want to clear backlogs. And the negatives mentioned by the Opposes seem very nitpicky to me: edit count in particular strikes me as Wiki-credentialism. Loki (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was gonna sit this one out, but it turns out I supported Pperry, so... I'm satisfied by previous interactions with the candidate that they will play to their strengths rather than their weaknesses. (And yes, I know—so should I!) Fortuna,ImperatrixMundi12:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. They know where they are competent and intend to work in those areas, they know where their strengths do not lie and don't intend to work those areas. They have demonstrated good judgement and I have confidence that will continue. Not everybody is a content creator and its problematic to judge everyone by that singular metric. Indeed, we need folks like ER97 who support Wikipedia in other ways to enable the content creators to do what they do best. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've only ever seen good things when I've come across their work. Has a clue and no reason to doubt they couldn't extend their work into areas with requiring the mop bit. Thanks for standing. Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I abstained in the admin elections, not quite active enough, little AfD activity, and even though I don't give it as much weight as some others the lack of content creation. But from their technical work I think they have a clue and the ever expanding standards for adminship just hurt the encyclopedia. Dogmatic criteria are always a poor way to make a decision. Criteria should be something that helps form a judgement, not something that controls it. This is not a court of law or a question of mathematics, simply do I trust EggRoll97 with the mop? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°18:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - While I have reviewed the Opposes and Neutrals and definitely can understand some of the points of view, I overall believe this would be a net positive and therefore am going to affirm my support here. -- Danetalk18:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In a world without the ability to recall admins fairly easily, I might be concerned about making someone an admin who has quite specialized skills but limited interaction with important parts of the encyclopedia. But in a world with admin recall, I don't see the big deal with making well intentioned people with valuable skills but limited experience admins. --JBL (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support A10 is an excellent response that should be have been part of the original statement. EggRoll97 has technical clue, demonstrated examples where they would be useful, and also awareness that they should gain more experience in other areas, e.g AfD before using the mop. Thank you for volunteering! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't really give half a fig for content creation as an admin criteria. I like gnomes. I like them to have admin permissions so they can finish whatever gnomish task they're working on without having to track someone down for the last steps. Joyous!Noise!02:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think these comments and several others are based on a misunderstanding of what (at least some) opposers are looking for and instead attack a strawman about the value of gnoming versus writing. Speaking for myself, I need admins to understand sourcing and notability requirements and I want them to have experience of calmly defending their actions. The best way to gain that experience is to write something because sooner or later (especially if you go through a review process) you'll have to justify the decisions you made and that shows what a potential admin is made of. There are other ways, but I don't see that this candidate has any experience of those either. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?13:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To each their own, but I personally am not expecting an admin to come in with an extremely high level of expertise, where they'd already be acting in the capacity of an admin and are now requesting the mop to make it more formal. I am all for supporting editors who, while not as experienced, clearly have the capacity, motivation, and wherewithal to and improve and learn whilst having the mop. I respect your justification nonetheless. — ThatCopticGuyping me! (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - their answers to the questions raised here have addressed my potential concerns, and we can certainly use more people getting involved with unblocks. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While more content work would be ideal, the candidate's technical work on edit filters (endorsed, I note, by other knowledgeable editors in this area like Sohom Datta) shows them to be clueful and responsible. I also recall their RM closing work being solid, and I think answers such as A11 and A14 further demonstrate a good head for policy. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've been mulling this for a while and the conclusion I've come to is it's a net positive to give this productive and well-liked wikignome the admin toolkit. They show no signs of misusing or abusing it. I'd join others in encouraging work in content creation, and have my doubts that granting admin would prevent EggRoll from either working in, or becoming overconfident in, that area. TheSavageNorwegian16:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm a 100 percent content creator. I have no problem with administrators who focus on the nuts and bolts of Wikipedia. In fact, I welcome them. Content writers need gnomish editors. Eggroll seems to be a modest sort, which is a asset in his field of endeavor. Nobody has cited any mistakes of consequence or lapses of character. Why oppose him to do the sort of work that is necessary but I'm not capable of doing? He's needed.Smallchief (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No issues I can see. Heck, if this had been 2005 instead of 2025, he would've easily been confirmed as an admin by now. Egg seems active, supportive, and an excellent contributor. I'd like to see more admins like this. A flurry of nominators and 10+ years of substantive editing doesn't necessarily make a good admin. — ThatCopticGuyping me! (talk) (contribs) 03:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think when we don't have any information to go on that would allow us to assess a candidate's judgement with the tools, we can and should at least ask the candidate about hypothetical situations that are reasonably likely to occur, as Q14 and my own Q15 do.
I am familiar with this editor from their filter work, which those of us on the front lines very much appreciate, and I had voted for them in the elections. I agree that, given the edit filter as noted involves rights that are not included in the admin toolset and a fair amount of community trust to hold those, trust has been demonstrated.
At the same time I admit that, especially on the heels of a wildly unsuccessful RfA that became a framable example for everything that turns people off about this process, I was given some pause by all the objections on the same ground: little content experience. And I understand and agree with CANCC. And the candidate's focus on the edit filters does not by itself demonstrate a need for the tools. So I could have !voted oppose on those grounds. SMcCandlish's oppose is particularly pithy and pungent, well worth keeping mind for future RfAs.
Yet it should be noted that the lack of a clear reason to have the tools is not the same thing as a reason not to give them. And I couldn't find that, either. So I was going to !vote neutral.
But now that Q15 has been answered to my satisfaction, I believe the user has shown judgement I would expect of an admin in areas I am familiar with (really, think about this ... you can't look in-depth at the abuse that gives rise to the edit filters without getting some understanding of the conduct issues that necessitate them) and I can support. No, I'm not bothered by Rsjaffe going the other way on the answer to my question ... that's what administrative discretion is all about. Daniel Case (talk) 05:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My standard for experience is simply "do we have enough evidence to assess the candidate's cluefulness and temperament", and I think the RM closures (see my note in the general comments section) and the edit filter work are enough to meet that bar. Both are complex areas requiring a range of subtle skills (policy knowledge, communication, responding to conflict, determining consensus), and in both cases their work has gotten nothing but praise from knowledgeable editors in that field. (I'm also happy with the answers to questions.) That's enough to at least flip the burden of proof to the oppose section, and I've yet to see anything there that really bothers me: so much of it is "not enough" arguments (the weakest sort of opposition) rather than issues with the candidate's actual body of work. Ultimately I just find it hard to see EggRoll97 ending up as the sort of admin who'd make me regret my !vote...and if I'm wrong, at least we now have the fallback that JayBeeEll mentions above. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moral Support: At this point the percentage has slid well below into crat chat territory. It's apparent community support isn't quite sufficient to promote this candidate at this time. Seeing the constructive feedback in many of the !votes, I'm hopeful this candidate may internalize what they've learned in these two processes, make improvements, and return for another run one day (in one venue or the other). I failed my first RFA badly, so I sympathize with someone like EggRoll97 who appears at the very least to be a good egg, but had two unsuccessful runs. BusterD (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Non Moral) Support No clear red flags, and I have community level disagreement with the requirements from some Opposes. I hope Eggroll continues to edit regardless of this RFA's outcome; and if the cratchat says no, you come back in N months! Good luck! Soni (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thryduulf sums up my thoughts fairly well. I've never been a content creator here, and while there are some areas of adminship I've barely put a toe towards, there are many other areas where someone can be productive and useful with the mop. stwalkerster (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. For someone who's going for their second RfA, I would expect that the candidate has done their homework better by working on the deficient areas. Yet they seem no better prepared than last October at the Admin Election. I do recognize their work in edit filter area. Between neutral and support, I decided on weak support. OhanaUnitedTalk page17:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I understand the opposition here in light of content creation gaps. However, I think the editor's contribution in the field of edit filters shows the judgement, character, and experience that makes one suitable for adminship. On balance, I support. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)00:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Close call as many voters, even opposers, note. I realize that administrators are not required to specialize; some do and that is a good thing since they often specialize in areas that get little attention. Temperament and judgment, especially recently, also must be taken into account. I end up here because although I am assuming that EggRoll will keep his promise to stay in his lane and move out of it only with significant more experience, that we should let the close call deciders, the crats, decide this one. Their comments should be instructive and useful. Donner60 (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify where you read the promise to "stay in his lane"? I'm curious as the sentiment has come up a few times, and is the opposite conclusion to what I read EggRoll97 as saying in Q1/Q7/Q12. CMD (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t recall an admin candidate with strong content creation background ever being told that they have to stay in their lane. I guess mere tech admins are lower class and need to know their place. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Donner60, I think this is an important call for clarification by CMD, as I do think this RfA hinges on that very point. In my oppose it was EggRoll's stated desire to get involved in unblocking users that tipped me over into !voting Oppose. Against that, I have noted several comments by supporters that there's no harm in letting EggRoll have the tools as they just do quiet, backyard, gnomish edits. The point I made in my oppose is that if we could unbundle the tool set, and give EggRoll just the tools needed to carry on that work - the ability to view deleted revisions for example, then that would be fine. But as the tool set contains stuff like delete and block, then I at least would like to see more and better evidence of good judgement and communication skills. As it stands, what I have seen (and pointed out in my oppose), is that at this moment EggRoll has not demonstrated the skills, knowledge, and clue I'd like to see in someone trusted to block or unblock other users. This is a perennial issue. Even when I joined Wikipedia back in January 2006, people were talking about the possibility of making the tool set more customable, so that delete and block could be removed for quiet, gnomish editors. However, the community would still prefer that a person who becomes an admin should carry enough trust overall to be given the delete and block tools. I'd like to see some of the tools unbundled for users like EggRoll, but - to be fair - that is a discussion more suited to a dedicated site wide RfC so it can be applied evenly to all RfA candidates, rather than as comments in an individual's RfA. As it stands now, like it or not, as a body we are being asked if we trust EggRoll enough to block and unblock users.
I agree that the 'Crats are likely to be the final arbitrators of the community's trust in EggRoll. The question is - are the 'Crats being asked to decide if the community has the trust in EggRoll having the block and unblock tools, or are they being asked to decide if the community has the trust in EggRoll having the less controversial tools while expecting that EggRoll will not use the block and delete tools until some later point. In general it is understood that new admins hold back on the more controversial stuff such as blocking until they gain more confidence and experience. So that's a given. In this RfA, though, we have a user who has said that (albeit slowly) they will be using the unblock tool. So the 'Crats in a sense will be expected to make an assessment if the community as a whole has the trust in EggRoll to only use the non-controversial tools and to actually not do what they have said in this RfA that they will do, which is to step into a controversial area and use a controversial tool. SilkTork (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - I find the arguments in the oppose column insufficient - this is a trusted volunteer (EFM!) that wants to work in backroom areas. He has shown that he has the necessary level of trust to do that, and he needs the tools to do that. We have chronic shortages in a lot of the backend processes - you can't shake a stick around AN these days without hitting someone pleading to have someone clear a backlog at a critical place. And yet the community seems like it's going to deny someone who is trusted and willing the ability to help. I object to that and support the candidate. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the answer to my question (Q8). While I appreciate the work that the candidate does with edit filters, ACC, importing pages and the like, the answer to my question didn't resolve the lingering problem of whether the previous concerns of last time had been addressed. If I see someone running for a second RfA, I'd like to see them point to evidence that shows that they have learned and that they are changing their behavior. If you look at our most recent successful second RfAs, say here and here, both candidates gave a detailed response regarding what they had learned from the first time that they failed RfA. The response that I see so far in Q5 is disappointingly short. Even if the discussion regarding EggRoll97 at AELECT was lacking feedback compared to a normal candidacy, doing a few extra AfD votes and writing an extra article or two isn't incredibly difficult and it shows that you are willing to take on and apply the feedback that you received there. The answer I took away from my question seems to say that they aren't as interested in working with CSDs AfDs, or content disputes which is okay, they are right that not all admins focus on those tasks and I'm busy to the point that I haven't participated at AfD in ages. But a prospective admin should be able to resolve concerns by demonstrating what they have changed from the first time around, and it would have been great if they did that and convinced a nominator to write a quick statement, like what Beeblebrox wrote at theleekycauldron's second RfA here. If EggRoll97 received a nomination statement from an admin like HJ Mitchell who participated in the AELECT discussion, I would be more inclined to support. But running a little less than six months away from AELECT would require an incredibly well-planned and prepared candidacy, and a lot of activity that shows things have changed a lot, and I just don't see that here. I'd be open to supporting or strongly supporting a future RfA if EggRoll97 can resolve some concerns and demonstrate that they can prepare extensively for the content and conduct disputes that every admin becomes a part of sooner or later. Fathoms Below(talk)21:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my vote so that 'crats and others can weigh it more appropriately, I'm not opposing mostly because of content creation. I care a lot less about content after seeing the outcome of Pppery's RfA (which I opposed based on content and temperament) as Pppery has been a good admin since then, who I think has demonstrated learning from the feedback and who I regret opposing. That RfA's 'crat chat affirmed that concerns about content creation can be surpassable, and I get the impression by rereading that RfA and through Lee's assessment of consensus that a good chunk of the community believes that technical experience can be a sign of trust and competence alongside content writing experience. I also don't care as much about "need for the tools" because let's be frank no one really "needs" them and the community found in an RFC that it was a poor reason to oppose. What I do weigh more heavily is behavior shown by EggRoll97, as they themselves admit that they were doing this RfA without a huge amount of preparation similar to AELECT when they say pretty clear with some reflection that my nomination could've used some work back then. If that was rushed, what's changed? They have made less than a thousand edits since AELECT and did not action the feedback given there, and in Q8 they weren't able to point to anywhere where they took on feedback, just saying that they would not participate in those areas. Being an admin means making concessions to the community and listening to what it has to say, and what seems to be a disregard of previous good-faith advice by experienced users at AELECT makes me question their judgement. Feel free to reply here if you think I am missing something or disagree, but I feel like some of the opposers might be missing the big picture about how they applied previous feedback rather than just responding to it, which is a more critical part of adminship rather than articles created or need for the tools. Fathoms Below(talk)20:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Page creation is very low, with one of the articles that they noted in the nomination, Contraband Police, not even having enough reliable sources to pass WP:GNG (though still technically notable via WP:NEXIST), and another arguably violating WP:NOTDATABASE. They have still not gone back and remedied the situation by adding more RS prior to accepting this nomination. If they don't have a clear grasp of basic Wikipedia policy like GNG and WP:NOT, I am not sure they are ready for an admin position. I don't doubt their good work with their particular area of specialization, but admins should ultimately be jacks of all trades regardless of their area of expertise due to unforeseen issues that they may have to deal with, which means knowing the ins and outs of typical article-writing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's understandable, though the "not seeing any problems here" also further reinforces my issue. With only one source that is a WP:USERG forum thread, that should've been denied pretty quickly. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't disagree, especially given that in their most recent edit to the stub they admit is their best content, they add material not supported by the source its next to (Special:Diff/1192587054) (fixed by a different editor in Special:Diff/1195486578). I'd be willing to write that off as a mistake, because I'd be willing to bet most of us have accidentally done something like that and it was in 2023, but they've only made, afaict, one non-minor, non-revert, non-requested and non-tag-based edit since then[9]. Looking at older edits, that fulfill the above requirements plus resulted in the addition of over 150 bytes of text, I can only find four (ABCD) since 2020. Goodness knows I don't want to be one of those "GAs or why bother" people, but I don't know how anybody expects to be able to find their way around CAT:RFU, like they've said they want to, without a solid grasp on sourcing and encyclopedia editing. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋00:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For those unfamiliar, at WP:EFFPR, most of us are not reviewing edits for every possible problem. I can't speak for EggRoll, but when I say something like "not seeing any problems here" at EFFPR, I mean that it's not (A) the specific thing filter is trying to stop, or (B) something egregious, like vandalism, spam, or a serious BLP violation. In short, anything that would be reverted or deleted on sight. The reasoning being that if not for the filter (which in this case was apparently targeting something totally unrelated), the filter's "victim" would have been able to make the edit on their own, so hassling them with unrelated problems we've discovered is a bit WP:BITEy. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good idea, as the current situation certainly seems odd. It's not actually "their" edit, so it can create confusion.
I still think that the lack of any sort of triage or proactive response after approving such an article shows an issue. Just putting a rubber stamp on obviously unencyclopedic pages is still a problem. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Speaking as someone who stood (and failed) in the election process, I'm glad you came back to do an RfA. However, I have concerns regarding the minimal content creation, limited participation in the broader Wikipedia ecosystem, and self-appraisal as having limited experience with conflicts. That said, if you get some more experience and come back in six months (or sooner, depending on what you get up to), you'll have my !vote. You clearly have some technical and niche expertise the project could benefit from in an admin. I hope to see more of you soon, whether as an admin or otherwise! ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333, yes, I noticed. It is indeed their top edited article. But nevertheless, it only has 7 edits, so it's not really that much different than an article they've made 3 edits to. — Qwerfjkltalk10:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm... not to nit-pick, but in the first diff you listed, EggRoll fxes two {{cn}} tags by adding a citation to a very obvious press release... that doesn't even support the information it's meant to be citing? It was in 2019 at least, but I'm afraid I simply don't know why anybody would bring that up as an example of content knowledge. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋10:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I believe the lack of anything else to point to rather demonstrated the point that Ritchie, I, and others have been making—that we have no substantial experience to base our assessments on because seven edits made in passing is enough to make an article ER97's most-edited article to date, and therefore there is no demonstrated practical understanding of policy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?21:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. So your best article contribution is an under 5,000-byte article about a video game, for which you share authorship roughly 50–50 with another editor. My, how far the project has come in the nearly ten years since I was hammered by the "content creators" after pointing to this over 200,000-byte article, to which I've contributed over 70% of the content, as my best article work. Only a quarter of your edits are in mainspace, with no single page there edited more than seven times. In contrast, you've edited Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports over 1,400 times. I see most of your article-space contributions have been either making edits on behalf of IP editors who were falsely stopped from editing by edit-filter failures, or importing edits of dubious value from the Nostalgia wiki. You say you want to help out as a gnome, but you must have "banner blindness" for all the templates and maintenance categories running around the wiki begging for help. I don't think anyone was asking for more pages to be imported from Nostalgia. You have a puzzling way, to me, of finding areas to help in. I'm only peripherally aware of edit filters, and I've almost never seen anyone making edits on behalf of filtered IPs, until I looked at your edits. Your cause might be helped by an administrator or two who is active working the edit-filter beat, to come here and explain and endorse the quality of your work in that area. I haven't put a boldface "oppose" at the front of this edit, as this may not be my final answer. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not as active as I was in edit filters before, but I took a look. ER97 has definitely done more than me in terms of edit filters even if we count my post-RfA filter edits. None of the edit filter edits are trivial since they affect all edits that come in. All of those require at least 5 minutes of thinking whether the change is correct (and in non-trivial cases, up to 20 minutes or even more to find out ways to implement something complex).
I've done a decent amount of those proxy edits, here are some of them: [10][11][12][13] I wouldn't have done as many as ER97 did because I have less edits to EFFPR than them (According to XTools, I have 469, ER97 has 945) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't decided on this RfA, but I don't see why it's bad to gnome in some specific areas rather than others as you're implying - I have long list of categories I periodically look at, but I'm quite sure there are hundreds of times more gnome tasks needing doing not in that list than are in that list, most of which I'm aware of And importing edits from Nostalgia Wikipedia is actually, in my opinion, a useful task to do, and has the nice property that once it's done it will be done forever, which is not something you can say about most backlogs. As is processing edit filter false positvies/requests, even if you're not aware of them and it kind of screws up your stats. (Although EggRoll97 is doing it incorrectly in my opinion - doing it right would require using XML import so the edits are attributed to the local username rather than to a "nost>username" placeholder). * Pppery *it has begun...17:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wbm and Ritchie. Sorry to have to do this, but for me it's essential that candidates have a solid foundation in content creation before coming to RFA. Although we all know there are editors who favour the "back-end" side of things here over article creation, and that's OK, I still think you need to know how the content game works and show that you know the basics. A GA or two, from your own writing, is preferable, but certainly some articles with good referencing and solid content writing that you can point to and say "this is my best work and it's down to me". Given there's a second RFA ongoing that fell down for this exact reason, it seems slightly naive to have started this at this point, most likely spending a month or two on the above would have led to a very different outcome. I would of course be open to further consideration if the above concerns are met. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be fair, it fell down not just because of content creation, but also because of the hastily prepared self-nomination, and editing while not answering the questions at the RFA. If it had just been content creation, maybe it would have passed. Who knows? 68.2.138.130 (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, good point, and thanks for clarifying, the two cases aren't identical. I know opinion is fairly split on this issue, but I've been fairly consistent over the years in opposing candidates who don't have a threshold minimum of content creation under their belt - you'll see this from prior RFAs too. If you haven't lived life at the "coalface", I don't think you are likely have the full knowledge of how to police said coalface, and there has at times been a perception of a disconnect amongst regulars at FAC and other predominantly content venues (many of whom are veteran non-admins) between their view of the Wiki and that of some of the admin corps. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, PrinceTortoise, sure. Sorry for the late reply, I was busy. This is a no vote on general principle. As others have mentioned, this user possesses little to no significant article contributions. Sure, let us put that aside as the candidate wishes to work in "backroom" areas. But, the candidate mentions that they said, and I quote: My uses for the tools would likely be fairly non-specific, just helping out anywhere I can, though more likely still gnoming away.
To me, this reads as the tools would be nice, but I can function without them. What specific benefit is there to you if granted the tools? Closing XfDs? RevDeling? The candidate works primarily with edit filters; it does not seem that their activities have been significantly hindered due to their user status. This boils down to someone who wants the tools, but doesn't really need them. As a personal principle, I dislike giving power to those that don't absolutely need it, especially on a site where so much work is done by volunteers. This is not implying that the candidate has ill intents, rather, it just simply is that the candidate does not need the tools. I am happy to clarify any part of this, should you have any questions. I understand the initial reticence at my lacklustre oppose, but since you asked I'll provide. X750. Spin a yarn?Articles I've screwed over?22:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@X750: I'm not that experienced either – I currently have 14 (now 13) fewer edits than you, and although I pay attention to RfAs, I've never supported or opposed a candidate outside of the admin election last year. I asked for an explanation mostly to make sure you hadn't ended up in the wrong section (I'm sure someone has misplaced a # ~~~~ before), and also because it's my understanding that opposers are generally expected to provide a short rationale for their oppose. Reading Wikipedia:Advice for RfA voters, it does look like there was community consensus in 2021 that "no need for the tools" isn't considered a good reason to oppose because we can find work for new admins. This might not affect your opinion much – it's not a strong demonstration of needing admin tools – but the candidate did mention in October that they would benefit from viewing deleted revisions. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 01:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, PrinceTortoise, but that's why I oppose on general principle, not 'pedia consensus. I may be voting against consensus but certainly not irrationally, which would be grounds to strike my vote. My second reason also has a lot to do with the first. Yes, you can find work for new admins, but generally, that work is in places where knowledge of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and other core tenet content policies is mandatory. Someone mentioned above me about working in a coal mine or something along those lines, and that sentiment resonates with me. Suppose we delegate a content dispute of a contentious topic to the candidate. With their limited scope of content creation in a largely niche topic, how can we expect them to perform well? This may seem like a pessimistic viewpoint, however, it is important to recognize what is at stake here. It is not just the individual's epaulettes that hang in the balance, it is the general reputation of the Wiki admins to do their job well, which from my experience they have done so. We want to maintain that sort of reputation. X750. Spin a yarn?Articles I've screwed over?01:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A maximum of seven edits to any one article (none of which are adding sourced content) does not speak to the depth and breadth of experience an administrator needs in order to be effective. Admins should eat, breathe, and sleep verifiability, neutrality, and no original research. Admins should also be intimately familiar with things like sourcing requirements, notability, and BLP. Not just in theory but in practice—ie how these policies are implemented in the mainspace. You don't seem to have any deep involvement with anything outside of edit filters. That's good and admirable work, but by itself it doesn't instil the skills and experience needed to be an admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?21:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. IMHO the content editors are entitled to the judgement of peers during the conflict resolution, so a significant experience in content creation is a must-have for a successful admin. The technical side of Wikipedia, in contrast, is relatively conflict-free, experience there does not help much while getting proper balance in the mainspace disputes. --Dimawik (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose per FathomsBelow, ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, Wbm1058, Ritchie333. I'm not going to sit here and declare that x number of FAs or GAs or articles in general or Featured lists or lists should have been produced in order to stand for an adminship but the scarcity of in-depth content editing/improvement coupled with the scarcity of content creation is a serious concern for me. - Shearonink (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the answer to Q1 and the total lack of content work. Both the technical and social powers that adminship grants give holders of the mop wide powers over content - powers that I would be uncomfortable seeing in the hands of one who has little experience with content work. Combined with the express lack of a "need" for the mop as stated in the answer to Q1 I find myself comfortably opposed to this candidacy. JavaHurricane11:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - No significant content creation. I'm more hesitant to support someone who doesn't actually write things; that's the literal point of Wikipedia. EF514:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not enough breadth or depth of experience yet. Certainly does valuable work, but that does not in my view qualify them for the broad responsibilities of admin work. Tony Holkham(Talk)18:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - if the best example of content creation is stub-class, I have to oppose. I'd hope to see a better minimum, at least a DYK or two. ResonantDistortion19:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been sure how to evaluate this candidate. Some content requirement standards are higher than others, but with seven being the highest number of edits on any article, (I'm struggling to word this, please forgive me) there seems to be almost nothing to evaluate there? For the two articles where they have seven edits, all seven edits in both cases appear to be anti-vandalism. A valuable task, but not one that can be used that much to indicate an understanding of content work. Another task admin's might have is to close contentious discussions, but the answer to Question 3 does not give much of an indicator of how that might be handled. No significant conflicts is great, but does not speak to experience. Cooler heads do sometimes prevail, but there are plenty of intractable disputes where participants are not swayed by any level of politeness, and many cases where politeness quite pointedly pushes POVs. It is those disputes, rather than ones which solve themselves, where admins are needed to evaluate community consensus.Aside from those tasks, I believe we have had cases where admins have been promoted due to the bits being very useful for the work they intend to do, for example regarding CCIs. However, the answer to question 1 is to "help out anywhere I might be needed", rather than to be able to perform any technical tasks they are currently unable to. Helping out anywhere needed is a noble goal I do not want to discourage, but per the previous points, I can't figure out how to evaluate that with respect to this candidate. There is some further expansion as a response to Question 7, with "I've also looked at requests for unblock a bit, and I think I'd want to slowly get into that". However, that seems a task which is hard to square with the answer to Question 3, as unblocking is likely requires significant experience on how conflict occurs and how it intersects with issues like content, which is again also hard to evaluate. So would the admin tools be useful for backend work as some supports suggest? I don't know, it doesn't seem like it from the questions and answers.I'm a bit surprised at how this RfA has gone, it is not how I feel the community would usually respond to this nomination. There's a really really small body of content work, far beyond the usual GA back and forths that sometimes come up. If there is a history of closes showing a good grasp of community consensus or a facilitator of discussions it hasn't been brought up. There isn't a clearly expressed need or purpose for the tools. The answers to questions 1-3 are shorter than those in every successful RfA from 2024 and 2025, so it seems unlikely that it was a comprehensive nomination statement overcame these oft-raised items. The additional questions do not read to me as having provided that much more information on these items either. Looking at the supports, I feel I must be missing something. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to figure out what that is over the past few days, so I land a bit nonplussed in this column. CMD (talk) 12:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I share the concerns noted by others, particularly Ritchie333 and wbm1058. I don't think significant content experience is needed when there are other things that demonstrate good judgement, understanding, and application of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. However, I think there is a baseline of experience writing content that is needed, and that is not met here. In addition, their activity at AfD, while infrequent, does not show a solid understanding of P&Gs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grammarly (2nd nomination) for example). They have NPP rights which I thought for sure would be evidence of their familiarity with content creation, but unless I missed one, they have only ever patrolled six non-redirect mainspace articles in the six years they've had the right (including this, which another patroller turned into a redirect), the last being in 2023. Per their answer to Q1, if someone is going to become an administrator just to help out anywhere I might be needed, then they need to show at least some minimal experience with things that would come up in the course of doing that, especially if potentially unblocking other editors as indicated in Q7 and Q10. - Aoidh (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Insufficient content creation, poor XfD track record, combative-leaning responses to some critical questions. A stand-out bad answer to me is "content dispute resolution is far outside the level of the backrooms". Anyone who thinks adminship is about being in back rooms and who is dismissive of content-dispute resolution isn't a suitable candidate. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 20:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose regretfully. Three major strikes against this candidate. First, no major content creation. What I see does not encourage me, and that combined with the low AFD match rate doesn't give good signs concerning their understanding of notability. Second, no real need for the tools. Among their large repertoire of permissions is everything they do and everything they've expressed interest in doing. And third, the short period of time between this RFA and the last one combined with the extremely large array of permissions they have gives the impression that there may be a HAT problem here. If these issues are corrected in two years or so, though, then I would likely support. 🐔ChicdatBawk to me!20:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see enough experience with the overall Wikipedia ecosystem. Specializing in a few areas is fine, please keep doing that, but I don't see a need for admin tools; furthermore, the number of rights that have been granted to this user vs. their number of edits definitely brings up a WP:HATC issue. hbent (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeThis 'recall' comment was not only unnecessary filler, but prompted another user to write a long explanatory message. Candidates oping to become an admin need to fully understand the context of situations and decide whether their inputs can productively improve a scenario, and more especially if it's at a high-risk page such as ArbCom, and if not, leave the thread alone. Just agreeing with others and suggesting a recall is not an 'improvement'. That comment was also made less than three weeks ago. A♭m(Ring!)(Notes)10:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sadly, I've fallen into the oppose camp. I'm not a huge stickler for nominees to have a great deal of content creation in the manner of GAs FAs, DYKs and so forth. But based on EggRoll's claim that their best creation/contribution is Contraband Police, I find their content work deficient. I checked out the article, and was surprised and disappointed to find the poor quality of sourcing. It's sourced to six Twitter posts; a blog (Made with Unity that simply name checks Contraband Police (it's not a review) and if you click on the link it takes you to a store where you can buy the game; a site Better, which I am unfamiliar with but it self describes itself as a PR firm, network of public relations services that can create "PR Plans", "Press Releases", "Marketing plans" and "Influencers" tied to game products. Two of the remaining sources seem OK, but the fact that the candidate may have difficulty distinguishing between high and low quality sources is really troubling, especially if this is their best effort. Especially if The other creations are two stubs, 6 disambiguation pages, and one short list article. Unfortunately I do not have confidence that they are ready for administration of the encyclopedia. I also agree with some of what has been written above regarding a lack of experience with the WP ecosystem; they have less than 10,000 overall edits, and I am concerned about the hat collecting. Their roughly 50% AFD match statistics may well be due to to the lack of understanding verifiability and quality sourcing, and I find their answer to Question 8 does not alleviate my concerns. I'm sure their work on edit filters has been very helpful, but I don't think they are qualified at this time to handle the mop. I encourage them to improve and broaden their skills, and want to close by saying that they have a pleasant disposition and an even temperament which are good qualities for an administrator. Netherzone (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rollinginhisgrave, thanks for your comment. I did have a look at the history, and saw that others had worked on it. But unfortunately my thoughts remain the same. Maybe I'm just weird but I try to maintain quality in the articles I've created, I feel a sense of responsibility to do so. I realize not everyone is like that, nor is it a requirement or policy. But to my mind, one would think the candidate, especially one with so few content creations, would review their past creations before running for RfA, and clean them up if needed. To me it indicates that content creation and quality it not at the forefront of their work here. And that, seems problematic. Netherzone (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as a WP:NOTYET. Two concerns - 1) the AfD record; I'd like to see that improved significantly. 2) per some others above, we have some optics of a hat collector. Beyond that, more gnome-admins on Wikipedia is a good thing and I encourage them to keep using the tools they already possess while demonstrating familiarity with core policies via improvements at AfD. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney"(hihi)17:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as I don't think candidate has not sufficiently demonstrated a strong understanding of P&G, particularly w/ notability and source evaluation. They clearly do important work w/ edit filters and seem like an even-keeled/considerate person - I would be happy to support in the future after more development. Doesn't have to be content creation, NPP or AfD would work too. Zzz plant (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose They don't appear to have acted on feedback from their previous RfA, and for a candidate who says they will help out where needed, their lack of content work or dispute resolution and their AfD record means I don't have enough confidence to support at this time. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The low amount of content creation doesn't bother me, but the small number of main space edits (~2300) is concerning, and makes me unsure whether they possess enough general experience to qualify them for the one admin task they specifically mention they want to work in, the consideration of requests for unblocking. Generally, I see essentially the same candidate that was before us in the admin elections, which at the time certainly appeared to be a case of WP:NOTNOW. Respectfully, this therefore is (at minimum) a WP:NOTQUITEYET scenario for me. That said, clearly a net positive to the project, and I hope they keep gnoming onward. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. I don't think inadequate content creation is a issue here, but I wish the candidate to gain more experience, particularly in the AFD. I'm willing to support next time if he did so. --A1Cafel (talk) 09:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I've been uncertain about this one for days now, and the more I look at it, the more I lean this way. Many here have pointed to the lack of content creation, which usually wouldn't be a big deal for me (especially for an admin who wants to do gnome tasks). However, I think they don't have enough experience to understand how the encyclopedia works, and would be concerned to see them use the tools. The answers to some of the optional questions, specifically Q4 and Q10, are missing the point even after follow up. They point to CopyPatrol and the edit filter manager, and how much difference they make. I don't think they are relevant, because no tool can replace common sense. Renerpho (talk) 10:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. HJ Mitchell, CMC, SMcCandlish, and Aoidh sum this up pretty well for me. To clarify, this !vote isn't about content creation (though I'm leery of anybody with more edits to CESSPIT than an article), but rather the absence of any demonstration that the candidate is familiar with the PAGs or problem-solving more nuanced than recent change patrolling. Relevant to their desire to work the unblock queue, the only times I've seen them deal with more complicated matters such COI editing, BLP issues, or de-escalating conflicts have not left me impressed. Still NOTNOW for me, personally, though hopefully I'd be able to support in 6 months after the candidate broadens their experience. They were already given the advice to do so after ALECT[15], and I have to confess I'm a little curious as to why they didn't take it. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋16:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally - re-reading the conversation I had with them a few weeks ago, and no, I don't think anybody who says with a straight face that a BLP subject can't be upset about the way they were written about in an article because the BLP subject is an administrator and could have blocked the other editor for writing the article[16] should be an administrator. That belies a complete misunderstanding of article writing, the relationship between COI policies and administrators, and BLP issues. Forgot about the exact nature of their comments in that thread. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋17:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's come up in a few supports, so just to clarify - this RfA has not been presented as one where the candidate wishes to stick in an area they know well. Rather, as per the nomination, they say they'd be an admin "anywhere" and clarified that their "uses for the tools would likely be fairly non-specific". GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋07:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough Wikipedia experience. (BTW, for modern Wikipedia,I DON'T consider a lack of new article creation to be a minus...and I consider self-nom to be a plus, and I don't look for GA and FA articles) Maybe in the future. Aside from work in the specialized work in edit filters, appears to have very little Wikipedia experience for a potential admin, particularly content related. Having the perspective for substantial content experience is need for the majority of admin work areas. North8000 (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a no from me. EggRoll has an interest in EditFilters, and their work there appears to be much appreciated. We need folks who are willing to do gnomish work in the background. Stepping forward into the Admin toolkit is though an area where, because the tools are bundled, we require greater knowledge and attention to detail than EggRoll has demonstrated via their edit history and in this RfA. My concerns were raised during the answers to the first question. The incident itself, while not pretty (with its pushing to the letter rather than the spirit of 3RR, and the poor communication is displays) is not the concern, but the response. The first alert for me was "My memory is slightly foggy from that far back". It's not that far back - it's just over 18 months. And GreenLipstickLesbian gave a clear summary with helpful diffs, so we have all the evidence we need to assess what was going on. There is the impression of an unhelpful defensive stance by EggRoll here that made me uncomfortable. The sort of response that would inspire trust and confidence would be something like "That was clearly a bad moment for me - I have learned a lot since then, so if I came upon something like that happening if I was an admin I would know how to deal with it...." And then "I don't deal much with copyright problems anymore (at least not with CopyPatrol, this kind of incident is what sours my experience with it)", which again appears to me to give the impression of someone not accepting responsibility. Putting the blame on the tool doesn't inspire me with confidence that EggRoll is able to use independent human judgement, particularly in the sort of stress areas where we require a cool, analytical, knowledgeable mind to sort out problems and make judgements. Pretty much every admin has experienced the request by editor x to "look into editor y who is causing problems", and on looking at the situation it is clear that editor y is causing problems so needs to be blocked, but a closer more subtle examination will reveal that editor x is also causing problems, and so also needs to be blocked. An admin is not a bot. There is a human at the end of most tools for a reason - and that reason is to use their judgement. The tool is introduced with the words: "CopyPatrol is a tool that allows you to see recent Wikipedia edits that are flagged as possible copyright violations." (My emphasis). The tool is not identifying copyvio, it is flagging if for a human to look into the situation and use their knowledge, experience, and judgement to make the final assessment. It is not the tool's fault if the human doesn't do their job. We shouldn't blame the tool for our own faults. Then I was caught by "none of the edits from me or the other user violated 3RR". So we are again back with a bot response, and a lack of awareness of the importance of human assessment and judgement. If all it took to be an admin was to glance down a check list of bright lines to see if they have been crossed, and only take action if they have, then we wouldn't need human admins - we could simply let a bot go around blocking users. This is the sort of situation where an admin should step in - before it becomes a 3RR situation, and while the encylopedia is unstable due to two idiots edit warring rather than discussing matters. Now, to be fair to EggRoll, they do make comments such as "I'll take the trout for what I admit was a bad way to respond to that" and "I definitely would respond a lot better than I did in 2023. For something more recent, I've had some of my gaffes pointed out on my talk page, for example, in this thread in my talk page archives", so they scored some positive points from me at this point, but already my concerns were raised. As I read through the answers to the other questions my concern grew that EggRoll does not have what we call "clue". I'm not clear from their answer to Q5 what they have learned from their first try at RfA - the response "I think the biggest thing my first run gave me for this time around is a good foundation which I was able to look back at and see 'what could I do better?'", is very vague. What exactly could you do better EggRoll? There are a number of us who feel that the admin election process lacked the sort of feedback that candidates could have learned from. For me, it seems that candidates like EggRoll were not able to learn much from that experience, other than the discussion and questions. They say their responses to the three questions were "pretty lacking", yet they haven't shown much improvement in their answers to the three questions in this RfA. Indeed, I feel their answer to Q1 was better the first time round. The answer to Q6 is not by itself an issue, but in combination with the poor communication displayed in the incident highlighted in Q1, plus the lack of human interaction on other user's talkpages (over 95% of the user talkpage edits done by EggRoll are templates - mostly welcoming templates, to be sure, but still, more a bot like activity rather than a user reaching out to a user), the "I wasn't exactly sure who would be willing to nominate" struck me as the comment of someone who is not used to joining in with the community. Communication, and an understanding of how the community works, is key to a good admin. I can't speak for all admins, but the good admins I am aware of communicate a lot behind the scenes. I have consulted with other admins (or experienced users), and other admins have consulted with me, usually by email. It's not always possible to consult on a tricky issue that is spilling over, so quick judgement calls have to be made at times. But they are generally made by experienced admins who have learned through prior consultations that their judgement is sound. While EggRoll and the project would likely benefit from them having some of the tools, such as viewing deleted material; unfortunately the tool kit comes as a bundle. And admins who are out of touch with the community tend to cause problems when they helicopter into an incident and block someone or delete something in a manner the community is unused to. I became particularly concerned such that by and large my mind was made up to oppose when EggRoll answered Q7 by saying they wanted to get involved in unblocking users. Given that EggRoll does not have a demonstrated history of consultation, has shown poor communication skills, has not shown much awareness of community spirit, has not demonstrated good judgement, I would not feel secure in EggRoll going round undeleting users that more experienced admins have declined to undelete. Category:Requests for unblock is not an area that inexperienced admins should get involved in. SilkTork (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The impression I've gotten from this RfA is that EggRoll does good and appreciated work as an EFM, but that their work outside that area either has deficiencies or communication issues that could pose a risk in an admin role. I find SilkTork's concerns just above persuasive, and am also concerned by the lack of content work and low AfD match rate (among a limited sample size). The answers to the standard questions were short, and I found Q3 particularly concerning — handling conflict is an inherent part of adminship, so someone who has not experienced it is not prepared (and if the candidate just wants to coast by with a vague answer, that should be discouraged). Overall, it seems that EggRoll is a helpful and trustworthy editor, but given these concerns I would not feel comfortable at this point granting them the admin toolkit. I hope that with some additional experience we'll be able to revisit their candidacy and welcome them to the corps. Sdkbtalk21:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This should be understood as the mildest possible oppose. I've been thinking about this for a couple of days, and I agree with what Vanamonde said in the neutral section, that there is more an absence of evidence of qualification, than the presence of evidence that the candidate would do harm. I see this as a not-yet situation, rather than a not-ever one. I get a vibe off of the candidate's comments, that this is a friendly and well-meaning person who has the best interests of the project at heart. But I also feel like I'm not finding enough evidence of learning from past mistakes and seeing how to do better, so I would rather not see this RfA pass this time. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Echoing the WP:NOTQUITEYET sentiments of many here. I'm struck by the divide between the candidate's "technical" experience (which is roundly endorsed) and the rather mixed (or absent) "managerial" experience. Or put another way, tool-centred versus human-centred work. I think underlying the concern about an lack of content work, is not purely a lack of quality output, but what is inherent in the content creation process - collaboration. At some point, in depth content creation means engaging with others, communicating, taking on board their suggestions, compromising. Content creation is not the only way to do that, but it's the one most are familiar with and the skills that come from that, collaboration, compromise, analysis, patience, are crucial in the judgement forming aspects that are central to admin work. It's not that it appears the candidate cannot do that, but there's not a compelling case to show they have done it sufficient to what is expected. To me this would be shown up in a nomination statement or at least some of the support statements, but this appears to be lacking. I want to reemphasise that my position here is in no way a reflection of my view of the candidate's potential and encourage them to take up the advice offerred by others here and following their AE. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I wrestled with this one for a while before landing here. For me, the poor (albeit limited) track record at AfD is the deciding factor. I don't feel great about basing this !vote on such a small sample size, but I just can't quite bring myself to support. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; lack of content creation isn't a problem for me. We all contribute in different ways. But I'd like to see evidence of overall competence and familiarity with the project, not just proxy edits for blocked IPs, as per Aoidh. Iseult Δx talk to me01:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose On the plus side: trustworthy, and displays the appropriate attitude (which is vital to being a good admin). On the neg side, very little content experience of any type, including AfD, CSD, improvement, evaluation, etc. That shows in the answer to question 15, which changed my vote from neutral to oppose. Yes, a bright line edit warring violation occurred and a block is appropriate. However, the bigger issues in that question weren't addressed: the lack of communication and talk page usage by the experienced editor and the lack of understanding of appropriate sourcing by the newer editor. EggRoll97 should have described how to address those issues as well. You will make a great admin in the future. Just not yet. New Page Patrol and Articles for Creation are great ways to get some of that experience (I prefer NPP). I wish you well in the future and hope you run again once you gain more experience and seasoning. — rsjaffe🗣️02:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mainly per Ritchie, but also per the wall of text by SilkTork (which yes, I read). I understand that the editor truly wants to become an admin, but as rsjaffe points out, NPP and AfC are great contributors for content evaluation and creation. Conyo14 (talk) 05:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not just for a lack of content (5 edits to their top article) but the log shows only 28 edits to edit filters in the last 6 months and a total of only 108 edits to edit filters. Many of these were minor, adding or deleting a word to an abuse filter. Their AfD matching rate was only around 50%. Although their answers to questions has improved since the AELECT 6 months ago, two optional questions required follow ups due to not getting a direct answer. I feel more experience is needed. Best IP75 (talk) 06:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the numbers: 20 edits before RfA. 16 edits after RfA. Also note that the link doesn't show edits made to private filters to people without EFH/EFM/sysop. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. EggRoll's work is appreciated and they seem to be a fine Wikipedian. Keep at it! But for adminship... content work is just far too low, per stats mentioned elsewhere. Never mind GAs or the like, but at least a single substantial article with stewardship and work would be nice to see. Now, tech / gnoming admins can be useful too, but per SilkTork's detailed oppose, I'm not convinced EggRoll has demonstrated clue-fulness in these domains yet, either. SnowFire (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On balance I think I'm an oppose for now. There is little in the way of content creation/curation that shows whether the cand has a grasp of many of the policies and guidelines, so we're left with looking at aspects such as AfD etc. The rate there isn't great and SilkTork's comments have been persuasive. - SchroCat (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is a pretty clear NOTYET situation... Very active editing, after a couple fits and starts, really began in May 2023 and the nominee is still on the south side of 10K edits. Gnomish work and some administrative tasks go hand in hand, but the percentage of work in mainspace (25%) needs some attention. I almost landed neutral so as not to be overly discouraging, but that's really not the point of the neutral section. So: create a new article, work on the content of others, keep plugging with the gnomish work, and please do try again in 18 months or so. Carrite (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not concerned with the content work, but to respect community time EggRoll should have waited longer before RfA and expeditiously withdrawn when it was clear that the RfA wouldn't be a success. (t · c) buidhe20:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: I'm a bit confused by this - are you perhaps thinking of LaundryPizza's RFA? This RFA was above 70% not long ago, and is still in the discretionary zone, above at least one RFA that passed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Without answering for Buidhe, the statement "should have waited longer before RfA" would indicate to me that this is in reference to the earlier AE attempt and thus not confused with LP03's RfA. While neither agreeing nor disagreeing with Buidhe, it's not unheard of an RfA candidate withdrawing before reaching the discretionary range. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unheard of an RfA candidate withdrawing before reaching the discretionary range. And it's also not unheard of for admins to resign without anyone demanding it. Some people choosing a certain way does not make it a reasonable or fair expectation.
The discretionary range exists for crats to, well, exercise discretion and evaluate if a candidate is suitable enough to pass. If you are going to pressure editors to withdraw while in the range, you're better off just starting an RFC to just auto-fail RFAs below 75%. Soni (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I am not convinced that the level of communication and experience in the intended areas of administration are sufficient here, and I have concerns regarding the answers to the questions from GreenLipstickLesbian, Significa liberdade, and Daniel Case. I also share wbm1058's concern regarding the answer on history merges. I have not been of much help merging histories either, but if asked directly about a topic like that, I would expect to see an answer that reflects actual engagement with the question through a more thorough review of the circumstances. Dekimasuよ!05:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Moved from neutral) I am opposing per Fathoms Below, HJ Mitchell, Abminor, and Goldsztajn. To avoid repeating them, I’m only adding a brief statement. The fact that someone is or isn’t an admin is not a big deal, but the ability to use admin tools correctly is. At this time, I don’t know if EggRoll97 has the policy familiarity, situational awareness, and communication skill to be an admin. They might, but they also might not, and I think it is better to err on the side of caution. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 06:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not yet. Others have already laid out the issues well. When it comes to content, consider not just writing, but editing (in the traditional meaning of that term): cleaning up prose, removing bloat, verifying source-text integrity, adding/improving reference quality, rewriting or removing promotional or biased content. Consider more work in areas that require communication. Stedil (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Neutral. Thanks for stepping up, but ... as a fellow editor who claims to be a WP:GNOME primarily, the fact the nominee has < 10,000 edits is a minor red flag for me. In that line of editing here, more is more, and being able to learn their way around Wikipedia is based on seeing the same issue/problem multiple times. The amount of edits I see, to me, does not show adequate experience in their claimed field of editing. Steel1943 (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. On the plus side: trustworthy, and displays the appropriate attitude (which is vital to being a good admin). On the neg side: content experience (I don't care if it's creation, deletion, improvement, assessment, whatever, just experience) seems low. I'm sitting on the fence. — rsjaffe🗣️ 22:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC) changed to oppose 01:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC) If they become an admin, I strongly suggest that they dedicate some of their time on-wiki to doing non-admin work in the content area, to become a more well-rounded admin. — rsjaffe🗣️15:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I've seen this editor around, and they are definitely very helpful on Wikipedia. However, I do see a lack in content creation. A quick skim of EggRoll97's top three most edited pages shows that two of them were edited to remove vandalism 12 and one was an AfC submission review 3. Since they are dedicated to helping out wherever assistance is needed—an attitude I admire—I think it would be helpful to have that special experience only content creation gets you under your belt. I don't think having less than 10,000 edits is a problem for me, and still think they would make a great admin. Cheers! Relativity ⚡️17:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the simple fact of an editor having < 10,000 edits by itself is not a concern. Gaining this much support from the beginning of the RfA (currently sitting at (11/0/2) ) is a good sign that the nominee sold their experiences shorter than they were advertising in their self-nom and possibly the answers to the questions. Steel1943 (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Fathoms Below (leaning towards Oppose), and the fact that problems that didn't come up in the previous RFA and have now come to light give me pause. The answers to the questions also seem lacking. I am !voting here until 100 people !vote inthis RFA. If no further problems come up, I will move to Support. If they do come up, I will move to Oppose. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bit torn on this... one one hand, they're an edit filter manager, and I don't put too much stock in audited content creation or edit count. On the other hand, they really don't have any decent content work (or.... any content work), and I don't think it's unreasonable to look at somebody's self-professed best content work, see their most recent edit to it has failed verification issues, and question what went on[17]. I wish they'd been a bit more forthright in their answer to Q3/Q4, or been a bit more descriptive/concrete about what a "better" response might look like. It was a while ago now, but there's really no excuse I can think of for calling somebody's opinions irrelevant because they aren't an administrator, mocking their "attempt to resolve" (scare quotes original), or state that you're the only one behaving in a human fashion. [18]. That's not just poor conflict resolution, that's active conflict seeking. But it was a while ago, and responding politely when somebody brings up an example of you accidentally leaving an extra two lines of code in a filter is certainly a step forward. I also have very large concerns about somebody with no content experience working in CAT:RFU, which they've said they will. A lot of people there were blocked for copyright issues, POV pushing, ect., and that sort of stuff isn't easy to pick up on without a lot of experience. And we've seen what happens when admins just take a user's word for it that the issues have been resolved. Like I said, conflicted. (like always, the expectation that candidates not respond to opposes/neutrals is a stupid one, and I welcome any response) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋11:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I really would have liked to support this, but I'm a bit bothered by the lack of content creation, combined with the big gaps in contributing. Since I haven't had any actual interaction with the applicant, I don't think I could support. However, I would add that the AfD statistics are not in any way an issue for me. Deb (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral EggRoll seems like a reasonable, trustworthy editor who won't abuse the tools, but they haven't done much to demonstrate how familiar they are with the important policies regarding content. Even a few 500-word articles would help evaluate their understanding of NPOV, V, and NOR. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 01:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I've worked a bit with EggRoll97 on edit filters and know of the good work they've done there. And while I think that admins don't need to have FA or GAs, I do believe there's a bare minimum of experience in content creation that an administrator should have. I myself don't have what I consider the bare minimum, and from what I see, EggRoll has even less. Nobody (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, regretfully. I've seen this editor quite a bit at WP:RM/TR, and their work there has been very good, and as a technically-focused editor/admin myself I was waffling on a weak support vote, but I just can't bring myself to support without more content work (not necessarily content creation, but at least in-depth stewardship of article content). --Ahecht (TALK PAGE)18:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been uncertain about this from the beginning, so I will sit myself here and write my thoughts out for the crats. Eggroll is clearly a good egg - he has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, he has been a contributor for a long time, and he's done valuable work on edit-filters. I have considerable trust in Eggroll's intentions and I can see a productive use case for the tools even just in the narrow area he works in. That said, I do believe administrators should understand content policy, and Eggroll's edits do not cut it for me in that respect (see comments by Netherzone in particular). Ultimately what I'm seeing is an absence of evidence (of the ability to use the tools safely) more than an evidence of absence, so I land in neutral rather than oppose. I also note that the needle seems to have moved a little with respect to the community's assessment of content, and we have had multiple successful recent candidates without much content creation - it still matters to me, but perhaps that is a sign I belong with the old guard now. I also appreciate the gumption required for a self-nomination, but this is another case where chatting with a nominator - or even just someone willing to advise without nominating - may have made a considerable difference. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(moved from Support) The issues brought up by the Opposers give me pause. I don't feel strongly enough that they are unqualified to warrant opposing, but I sadly can no longer maintain my support. If this RFA ends up unsuccessful, I hope Eggroll sticks around, as their EFM work is highly appreciated. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been dithering about this all week, so putting some thoughts down here since this seems to be heading towards a crat chat. Overall, the candidate seems to have good judgment. I'm not really seeing anything in the opposes that makes me actively worried about what they might do with the tools, and they seem to take feedback reasonably well. While I am not active at RM and can't evaluate their work there, the move reviews seem to be overall happy with them, even in what I am sure were the most controversial of all their closes: this is exactly the kind of "human-centric" admin-like work I'd like to see to demonstrate good policy-based judgment from a more technical candidate. The fact that they haven't demonstrated familiarity with e.g. deletion policies doesn't strike me as disqualifying in the face of good evidence that they can learn policy well and will before working in an area that requires it. And, quite frankly, EFM is a very high trust role, and I start with a presumption of support if someone has worked in it for a while without concerns. On the other hand, there are fuzzier conduct concerns that do give me pause, including those mentioned by SilkTork and GreenLipstickLesbian. Also, while I am very very reluctant to support on lack of content, having almost no edits in any content creation or content review roles, and having what's there be quite weak, does make me worry about handing them the delete or block buttons. (EggRoll, I say this with great appreciation for your EFM work: I don't think content work is important to be a good, valuable editor) Rusalkii (talk) 06:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I don't have concerns about the limited content experience, because I think that expansion of the encyclopedia is only an important function at this time and not the most important continuing function. The maintenance of quality is also important. I am however concerned about the inconsistent AFD results, which seem to indicate that EggRoll's interpretation of notability may be different from the of much of the community. I am also concerned that there are a variety of other issues raised by Oppose voters. So I can't support, but I won't oppose. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And if you want to !vote Support, please don't do so in response to the other RfA currently open. I suspect that disaster might prompt some kind of knee-jerk reaction in terms of supporting a non-nommed RfA. This isn't a comment on EggRoll97's qualifications, but more a comment on the process itself. Intothatdarkness20:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find it difficult to make up my mind about either because, well, they happen simultaneously and LaundryPizza03's RfA has been really confusing so far. Luckily, there will be more than two days left on this RfA after the other one has ended, and I plan to give EggRoll97 a fair vote at that point. Renerpho (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.
The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.
Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert
{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}
At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.
While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.
Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.
^Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.
