Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk.

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 nominations haven't updated.

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Rusalkii	73	0	1	100	Open	19:36, 23 April 2025	6 days	no	report
EggRoll97	91	38	8	71	Open	15:07, 19 April 2025	1 day, 20 hours	no	report

Current time is 18:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC). —

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Rusalkii	73	0	1	100	Open	19:36, 23 April 2025	6 days	no	report
EggRoll97	91	38	8	71	Open	15:07, 19 April 2025	1 day, 20 hours	no	report

Current time is 18:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC). —

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.

This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

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 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.

About RfA

Recent RfA, RfBs, and admin elections ()

Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	Tally
				S	O	N	%
LaundryPizza03	RfA	Unsuccessful	17 Apr 2025	72	81	26	47
Goldsztajn	RfA	Successful	23 Mar 2025	136	1	4	99
Barkeep49	RfB	Successful	7 Mar 2025	219	5	8	98
Giraffer	RfA	Successful	1 Mar 2025	221	0	1	100

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). 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 not transclude 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.

Notice of RfA

Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}} on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en.

Expressing opinions

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. 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.

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

For more information, see: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats § Promotions and RfX closures.

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. 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". 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.

Monitors

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.

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 18:42:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

---

if nominations have not updated.

---

Rusalkii

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (73/0/1); Scheduled to end 19:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Monitors:

Nomination

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)

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)

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)

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.

Optional question from Ganesha811

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.

Optional question from Miminity

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.

Optional questions from Conyo14

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.

Discussion

• Links for Rusalkii: Rusalkii (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• 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.

Support

1. Support as nominator. -- asilvering (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Support as nominator. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Support Offered a nomination a few days back. Strong candidate. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Very happy to see this charlotte ^👸♥ 19:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
6. Support - I don't believe we've interacted, but they seem like an industrious editor with a kind heart! AviationFreak💬 19:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
7. 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)
8. Support I don't see any way you could oppose this nomination. fanfanboy (block_talk) 19:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
9. Support Will be a net benefit. Let'srun (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
10. Support Reviewed one of their DYKs (Pulaski's Masterpiece). Was a very pleasent exchange. WatkynBassett (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
11. Support Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 20:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
12. 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)
13. Support A refreshing set of answers; a no-brainer. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
14. Support, no issues here. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
15. Support We need more admins! Also, a seemingly good candidate with good nominators. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 20:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
16. Support Thank you for volunteering ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
17. 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)
18. Support AfC is a big plus. Good to see more admins there. SK2242 (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
19. Support. I've seen Rusalkii around RfD and I'm always happy to have more admin help there. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
20. From one "lesser" XfD editor to another, support! HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
21. Support. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
22. Support Good luck! Polygnotus (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
23. Support. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
24. Support her promotion. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
25. 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)
26. Support thoughtful answers to questions and plentiful green flags in user stats/talk page. Zzz plant (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
27. —Ingenuity (t • c) 22:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
28. Support No concerns, net positive. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
29. Support It will be good to have more admins at AfC and RfD. Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 22:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
30. Support - looks like a net benefit. starship.paint (talk / cont) 22:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
31. Support Zero qualms here. She seems well rounded, well liked, and well prepared for the tools. TheSavageNorwegian 23:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
32. Support A qualified and thoughtful candidate. No concerns here. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
33. Support Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
34. Support Diligently completed a high-quality GA review (Talk:Anna Filosofova/GA1), caught a couple of mistakes of mine. No issues raised in a quick look at their contributions. A great candidate. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
35. great editor, definitely trustworthy :) ... sawyer * any/all * talk 00:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
36. Support Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
37. Support, from what I remember, this editor is qualified. ✶Quxyz✶ 00:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
38. Support, Dracophyllum 01:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
39. Support — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 01:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
40. Support looks like a great editor, adminship is no big deal! - JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 02:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
41. Support I like what I see on the user talk page. Joyous! Noise! 02:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
42. Sounds good to me, thank you for your work! Innisfree987 (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
43. Support. Trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
44. 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)
45. Support I do not see any obvious issues here in her skills or understanding of policies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
46. Support – clueful, friendly, great answers to questions (especially Q3). Graham87 (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
47. Support - Have seen this user around and always been impressed with their kindness. I really appreciate the willingness to work on backlogs. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
48. Support lgtm. – robertsky (talk) 03:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
49. I trust the noms and I believe this will be a great addition to the admin team. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me)
50. Support Per nomination. Will benefit the project with the tools. Spencer^T•C 04:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
51. Support: Has a Clue and Answer my question great. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 04:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
52. Support. Can't wait to see you becoming an admin. Galaxybeing (talk) 04:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
53. Support Why not? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
54. Support Very friendly editor with all around great contributions as far as I'm aware. Happy to support, cheers! Johnson524 05:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
55. Support Clearly a good candidate and we need new Admins. Bduke (talk) 05:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
56. Support Cabayi (talk) 08:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
57. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
58. 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)
59. Support: Good candidate for admin tools. GrabUp - Talk 11:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
60. Support: Someone who I've definitely seen around. Lots of good content work and extensive reviewing work. Justiyaya 11:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
61. Support. Her ability to admit a mistake and change her view accordingly as new information surfaces, as demonstrated in this AfD withdrawal, win me over. Owen× ☎ 11:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
62. Support: No brainer, clearly competent user who learns from mistakes and will do well with the tools. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
63. Support LGTM. Ternera (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
64. Support Plainly excellent candidate. OceanGunfish (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
65. Support Volten001 ^☎ 13:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
66. Support A quite excellent nominee. Thanks asilvering for co-nominating her! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
67. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
68. Support 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
69. 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)
70. 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)
71. 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)
72. Support Looks good. North8000 (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
73. Support ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

1. 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)

   10/10 neutral vote. Something aesthetically pleasing about it. Yes, I am a little odd, why do you ask? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

General comments

• 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)

  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)

  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)

---

EggRoll97

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (91/38/8); Scheduled to end 15:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Monitors:

Nomination

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)

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.

Optional question from GreenLipstickLesbian

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)

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.

Optional question from Turini2

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?".

Optional question from Valereee

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.

Optional question from Mz7

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.

Optional question from Fathoms Below

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.

Optional question from GTrang

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.

Optional question from GreenLipstickLesbian

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)

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".

Optional question from Robert McClenon

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.

Optional question from Significa liberdade

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.

Optional question from TarnishedPath

13.You have less than 500 edits in this calendar year. Do you think it's appropriate to have someone making less than 150 edits a month as an admin?

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.

Optional question from PrinceTortoise

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.

Optional question from Daniel Case

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:

Discussion

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/EggRoll97
• Requests for adminship/EggRoll97 2

• Links for EggRoll97: EggRoll97 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• 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

1. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
2. Ternera (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
3. I've seen them around forever and I trust their judgement. No concerns from me. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Support I've worked with EggRoll97 quite a bit in edit filter-related areas, and fully trust them with this right. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
5. Happy with this candidate at the election; equally happy here ~ Lindsay^Hello 15:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
6. Support, no concerns. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 15:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
7. Support. No problems here! Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
8. 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)
9. Support. Egg. --TylerBurden (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

   Roll! HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:02, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

10. Support. PhilKnight (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
11. Support Has been around since 2018 a net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
12. 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)
13. 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)
14. 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)
15. Support ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:44, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
16. 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)

    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)

17. Support Jianhui67 ^T★C 19:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
18. Why not; I think I supported last time around charlotte ^👸♥ 20:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
19. Support No red flags SK2242 (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
20. 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)
21. 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)
22. Support. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
23. Support, thank you for volunteering to help out in areas where more help is needed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:53, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
24. Support – DreamRimmer (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
25. Support Mox Eden (talk) 09:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
26. Support – been great to work with them at Wikipedia:Requests for page importation and related pages. Graham87 (talk) 09:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
27. Support. DBrown SPS (talk) 10:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
28. 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)
29. 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)
30. 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)
31. (Moved from neutral.) Meh, WP:NOBIGDEAL and seemingly a net positive. Steel1943 (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
32. 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)

    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)

33. Support -Volten001 ^☎ 15:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
34. Support -- Wikipedia needs volunteers and those interested should be allowed to do so. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
35. Mach61 16:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
36. Support Will be a net benefit. Let'srun (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
37. 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)

38. Support per Steel. Cremastra _talk 18:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
39. Support — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
40. Support. Codename Noreste (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
41. 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)
42. Support They're a net positive candidate. Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 22:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
43. 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)
44. 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)
45. Support. Rzuwig^► 07:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
46. Support, sure why not :-) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 09:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
47. 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 | tålk 09:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC).
48. jp×g🗯️ 10:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
49. 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\^talk 10:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
50. Support Great candidate, appreciate their work as an EFM. Aqurs1 (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
51. 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)
52. Support GOod luck. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
53. Support They had my support before, they will have it again. fanfanboy (block_talk) 14:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
54. 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)
55. 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). -- Reconrabbit 15:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
56. Support - Never worked with them, but I am convinced by their responses to the questions above 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
57. Support Per HouseBlaster and Optional Question 3. -- Grapefanatic (Talk) 17:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
58. 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)
59. 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)
60. 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)
61. Support - going to be a clear net positive if elected. No behavioural concerns. Gizza (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
62. Support - The user is knowledgeable about edit filter management, and I believe that user will perform well as an administrator. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
63. 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, Imperatrix Mundi 12:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
64. Strong Support Obviously. --Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 12:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
65. 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)
66. 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)
67. Support Based on answer to question 13. ForksForks (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
68. Support I trust the judgment of many of those above, but I also think that we need more gnomeish admins. Easy choice for me. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
69. Support I find content creation concerns unsubstantial enough to prevent my support. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
70. Per Thryduulf. —Kusma (talk) 08:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
71. Support Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 13:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
72. Support Based on RM closure history and edit filter history. Rocfan275 (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
73. Support. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
74. 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)
75. 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. -- Dane ^talk 18:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
76. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
77. SupportWe need more admins! JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 21:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
78. Support - as noted above, we need more admins during this crucial time. Bearian (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
79. 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)
80. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
81. Support per Thryduulf and JayBeeEll. Miniapolis 01:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
82. 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)
83. 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)
84. 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)
85. Absolute Support They have done a great job as a Wikipedian! Galaxybeing (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
86. Support per Sohom. OceanGunfish (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
87. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
88. 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)
89. 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. TheSavageNorwegian 16:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
90. Support All in all, I believe that giving EggRoll97 the admin toolkit will likely be a net positive for the project. Pichpich (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
91. Support Hy Brasil (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 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)

   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)

2. 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)

   In fairness, the second example appears to have been created by request [7][8]. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 23:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

   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)

   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 (A B C D) 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)

   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)

   I have filed T391778 to hopefully reduce the amount of confusion about the EFFPR process in the future. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

   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)

3. 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)
4. Oppose for three reasons. 1. In addition to Zxcvbnm's oppose, the most significantly contributed to article, Amy Adams, has no edits adding content or sources. Per my essay, I don't require FAs, GAs or DYKs, just evidence you know what's involved in writing an encyclopedia. 2. AfD stats are still very poor, with no improvements on things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural Disaster Survival which didn't consider WP:ATD-R. 3. Poor CSD record, including WP:U1 tag on a talk page User talk:Zehralateef (declined) and a WP:G5 tag on another (diff), which shows the candidate has not read WP:DELTALK. This is just from a cursory glance, with this many red flags jumping out, there's no way I can trust them with the admin toolset. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

   Ritchie333, re 1., it's a bit disingenuous to call it the most significantly contributed to article - they've only made 7 minor edits to it, all reverts. E.g. see Special:Diff/1192586227 and Special:Diff/902547789 for where they have added sources. — Qwerfjkltalk 09:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

   This statistic comes straight out of https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/EggRoll97#top-edited-pages - the first place I have gone to for evaluating RfA candidates for years. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

   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. — Qwerfjkltalk 10:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

   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)

   GreenLipstickLesbian, my point isn't to support EggRoll - that's a valid concern. But it gives more to go off than one article that happens to have been edited more than others. — Qwerfjkltalk 10:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

   None of these comments address the other two reasons for opposing - a poor understanding of deletion policies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

   Yes, but that's not my point, which is that just looking at one article is less than helpful. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

   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)

   Then say that (as you have) instead. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

5. 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)

   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)

   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)

   Further comment. You say history-merge is not something that's necessarily backlogged, but it is "something I've looked at before". Really? WP:WikiProject History Merge page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. After you moved a page, another editor had to adjust the hatnote after you neglected to do so. While you haven't made a lot of time to work on content, you did make time to suggest, on an admin's request for check-user privileges, that they should be recalled. Sorry, oppose. Final answer. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

6. 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)

   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)

   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)

7. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 18:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

   X750, would you mind explaining why you oppose this candidacy? PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 19:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

   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)

   Addendum: My response may seem naïve given my lack of experience on Wikipedia, so, if anyone would be so kind to correct me, fine by me. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 22:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

   @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)

   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)

   That's good reasoning, and I'll keep it in mind if this gets close to discretionary range and I need to make my mind up. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 01:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

8. 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)

   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).

   Note: Participant struck out their own vote here. Steel1943 (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

9. Oppose per Ritchie, mainly. Ryan shell (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
10. 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)
11. 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. JavaHurricane 11:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
12. 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. E_F⁵ 14:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
13. Oppose due to the lack of content creation most created pages are disambigs or stubs. No FLCs, GAs, FACs, or DYKs. Also I have some concerns over WP:HATSHOP Olliefant (she/her) 15:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
14. 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)
15. 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. ResonantDis_tortion 19:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
16. Oppose, per Ritchie333 and others. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
17. 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)
18. Oppose - no issues with content creation, but agree with Ritchie and others above, not enough AFD etc. knowledge/experience. GiantSnowman 15:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
19. Oppose, I agree with others above. In my opinion, it is better to oppose as it ensures that admins are experienced. Sahaib (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
20. Oppose - I share the concerns noted by others, particularly Ritchie333 andwbm1058. 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)
21. 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)
22. 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. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 20:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

    It's WP:HATC, not WP:HAT. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 16:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

23. 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)
24. Oppose This '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)
25. 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)

    Netherzone It would be good to have a look at Contraband Police as it was when last edited by Eggroll [14] as they didn't add any of the sources you flag here. Question 14 also also give some insight into their understanding of reliable sources. Your other concerns still stand of course. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 22:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

    @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)

26. 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)
27. 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)
28. Oppose per Ritchie333 and HJ Mitchell. TarnishedPath^talk 23:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
29. 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)
30. Oppose insufficient experience where it counts, per many above. Stephen 01:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
31. 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)
32. based on the AfD concerns. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
33. 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)
34. 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)
35. Oppose, poor AfD stats. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:33, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
36. 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)

    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)

37. 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) 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. North8000 (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
38. Oppose Fully agree with Ritchie333's emphasis on content creation, such that prior to the Oct 2024 admin elections, I advised EggRoll97 to resolve this deficiency. Same as now, EggRoll97 replied that Contraband Police was proof of their content creation competency, which as Netherzone points out, is odd given that EggRoll97 has neglected to maintain this stub's sourcing quality. As Fathoms Below put it, returning to RfA so quickly without addressing this glaring issue is troubling. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 18:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

(Moved to support.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

1. 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 1 2 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)

   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)

2. 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)

   I think i'll remain here for now. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

   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)

3. 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)
4. 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)

   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)

5. 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)

   Still neutral for now, but the answer to my question is about what I was looking for. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 04:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

6. Neutral I think more content creation is needed to demonstrate understanding and depth before becoming an Admin. Coldupnorth (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
7. 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)
8. 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)

General comments

If you want to !vote Oppose, please be kind. Polygnotus (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

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. Intothatdarkness 20:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

Not sure about that one, but WP:BEANS definitely applies. Steel1943 (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

---

I'm still undecided at the moment, but since it hasn't been noted anywhere, I do want to mention that EggRoll97 has a pretty extensive body of RM closures (roughly 180 of them) that's worth considering. A sample of trickier discussions might include [19] (follow-up discussion; move review), [20] (follow-up discussion; move review), [21], [22], [23], [24], and [25]. The candidate hasn't been too active in this area in the last year or so, but I think the record is still useful in evaluating how they determine consensus, respond to conflict, communicate, etc. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

---

About RfB

"WP:RFB" redirects here. For bot requests, see Wikipedia:Bot requests. For help with referencing, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.

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. ~~~~}}

into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

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.

Current nominations for bureaucratship

There are no current nominations.

---

Related pages

• Wikipedia:Administrators
• Wikipedia:Administrator elections

For RfX participants

• Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship
• Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship
• Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates
• Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination
• Nominator's guide
• Wikipedia:Advice for RfA voters
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Debriefs – RfA candidates sharing their RfA experience

History and statistics

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship by year
• Wikipedia:RFA by month
• Wikipedia:Successful adminship candidacies
• Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological)
• Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies
• Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies/Chronological
• Wikipedia:List of resysopped users
• Wikipedia:RFA reform

Removal of adminship

• Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship – Requests to remove administrator access for abuse and/or self-de-adminship
• Wikipedia:Former administrators
• Wikipedia:Desysoppings by month

Noticeboards

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
• Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

Permissions

• Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
• Requests for other user permissions can be made at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.