Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/Candidates/Drm310

Co-nomination

Drm310 has been consistently improving Wikipedia for well over a decade and has developed substantial experience in anti-abuse and maintenance work, particularly around spam prevention and routine deletion.

In addition to the CSD work highlighted by Femke, his activity is consistently visible across UAA, COIN, and AIV, reflecting a sustained focus on addressing promotional editing and policy violations. (As a UAA/CSD admin patroller, it would save me some work if Drm310 handled things directly!) This is complemented by careful attention to identifying likely copyright issues and notifying editors where appropriate. Drm310 demonstrates a consistent and methodical approach to handling high-volume, repetitive backlogs where judgement matters. Their actions show an understanding of when issues are clear-cut and when they require additional scrutiny or escalation, particularly in borderline spam and promotional cases.

Alongside this, he has regularly engaged in assisting newer editors, including at the Teahouse, and in explaining actions such as blocks or COI-related concerns in a constructive manner. This helps ensure that enforcement is paired with clear communication where appropriate.

He has time and time again shown patience and a willingness to help others. I hope you will all support Drm310 in getting a long-overdue mop.-Kj cheetham (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Please disclose whether you have ever edited Wikipedia for pay: I have never edited Wikipedia for pay. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Optional questions from Robert McClenon

4. This question is about the use of artificial intelligence in Wikipedia in both articles and discussions. What do you as an administrator plan to do to limit the use of artificial intelligence?

A: We have to be realistic; the AI genie is out of the bottle, and it's not going away. Therefore we must manage how it is used, which is why we have protocols about AI to guide our actions. As the technology evolves, I expect those policies and guidelines to evolve accordingly.

As an admin, I expect to be called upon to make judgements about whether AI is being used inappropriately (e.g. AI-generated article content, comments in discussions, and images) and rule on WP:G15 speedy deletion nominations. My own personal experience checking for AI content has been to use multiple AI detection tools to see if there is consensus, and use my own judgement following the signs of AI writing advice page. I would also draw upon the expertise of fellow admins who have more extensive experience with these situations.

Admins should not just be enforcers but also educators, helping users to understand the importance of preserving Wikipedia as a human-written resource.

5. This question is about unregistered editors and the temporary accounts assigned to unregistered editors. In closing discussions such as AFDs, RFCs, and ANI threads, should the arguments of unregistered editors be given the same weight as registered editors, or less weight, or should they be ignored?

A: As the essay title says, unregistered editors are human too. From the beginning, we have given our users the free choice of contributing as registered or unregistered users. As such, unregistered users are free to edit (most) articles and participate in (most) discussions with as equal a voice as registered users. Consensus is the goal of every discussion thread, so their arguments should be considered with equal weight, as we're required to assume good faith unless there is evidence to the contrary (e.g. WP:LOUTSOCK). Registered or unregistered status has no bearing on whether or not a user's arguments have merit.

Optional questions from GGOTCC

• 6. You have been a contributor for 20 years; thank you for your contributions to the project. Looking back, is there anything you wish would return to Wikipedia, or something that is no longer as effective as it was?

A: Wikipedia:Requested articles was a great idea in the early years when the encyclopedia needed new content, and users would suggest ideas for new articles. Unfortunately, over time it grew into a list with tens of thousands of entries, and low rate of fulfillment due to declining participation. It would be nice if there was a way to reform and revive it and its associated WikiProject, but that would be a massive undertaking.

Optional question from Conyo14

7. What made you decide to go through admin elections instead of an RfA?

A: I first thought about running for adminship back in 2021, when RfA was the only path. However, I felt intimidated when reviewing some of the RfA debates at the time, in particular with some candidates that I thought had a good track record. I found the process to be harsh and adversarial, which I did not feel up to facing. When the election process was implemented, I found it to be more controlled and even-tempered.

Optional questions from I2Overcome

8. Over the years, Wikipedia has endured many challenges. What do you think is the greatest challenge Wikipedia faces today, and why?

A: Certainly the rise of generative AI and the challenges it poses has been discussed at length. But perhaps another equally important challenge that deserves attention is the loss of diversity in our news sources from amalgamation. Traditionally we've been accustomed to having a diverse array of sources, which tends to even out the narrative biases into a neutral average. Now, traditional news media is increasingly concentrated amongst fewer companies; local news sources are being shut down, scaled back and/or reduced to just republishers of content from centralized operations. This means less coverage of local or regional topics, and greater vulnerability to political pressure and bias, either from their own management or external influences.

9. If you have not already explained elsewhere, please explain how you would approach this challenge as an administrator.

A: The larger issue is not just an administrator-specific job but something for the community as a whole to address. Focusing on just an admin role, though - if there is difficulty achieving neutrality due to biased sources, or arguing notability because of source scarcity, my approach would be based on de-escalation, education and facilitating consensus.

Optional questions from Left guide

10. This question is inspired by your CSD log showing a substantial majority of recent entries as G11. Administrators who speedy delete as G11 often have their actions challenged on their talk page by COI/paid editors, with requests to restore the page. What would be your general approach for dealing with such situations?

A: WP:G11 applies to content that is exclusively promotional and need a fundamental rewrite. As with my nominations, I would have to be very confident that the page was irretrievably promotional, and therefore unsalvageable and worthy of deletion. G11 deleted pages are ineligible for a WP:REFUND, so I would explain why their content could not be restored. I would explain the relevant notability criteria, and the types of sources required to satisfy those criteria. I would alert them to the conflict of interest guidelines and paid editing policy, and stress disclosure if one or both applies to them. Finally, I would encourage them to use the Articles for Creation process, explaining its benefits of independent review of their work, and the goodwill fostered by participating in a collegial editing process.

11. In light of your Q1 intention to administrate at WP:RFPP, how would you determine the ideal duration for protecting a given page?

A: Page protection should apply the minimum level and duration needed to stop the disruption, while still allowing constructive editing. Key factors include: how long disruption has occurred, current events/media lifespan, prior protections (escalating durations), and contentious topics.

When determining the duration, I would keep in mind that durations start short (hours to a week, in most cases). They can escalate to 1 month for ongoing issues, or indefinite for chronic ones. For semi-protection, I would follow the rough guide to semi-protection. Extended confirmed or full protection use more conservative durations (rarely >1 week, often 1-3 days); contentious topics may warrant indefinite (e.g., Israel-Palestine articles).

Optional questions from George Ho

12. What do you think about ArbCom's recently passed principle "Focusing on content isn't enough"?

A: Focusing on content is important, but it cannot come at the expense of civil behaviour. Naturally in any collaborative project, personalities will inevitably clash and disagreements will arise. But real teamwork requires both content rigour and basic respect; a toxic environment drives away editors and benefits no one. Civility is our fourth pillar and one of our non-negotiable conduct policies, so we have plenty of dispute resolution mechanisms at our disposal when talk page discussions fail to resolve disagreements.

13. What about Christophe Henner's LLM-generated usage of an LLM in his Signpost article?

A: It's certainly a dense read. I assume that your question pertains to my opinion about the author's use of a LLM to write the Signpost article, not about the article content itself. It makes me a bit uncomfortable, to be frank. In such a lengthy piece of prose, it is easy to obfuscate the overt signs of LLM writing. To his credit, he did disclose using LLM "to help write and copyedit" as English is not his first language, but what that means is unclear. I would prefer that high-visibility venues like the Signpost remain human-written - as its homepage tagline boldly states, "The Signpost is written by editors like you". Readers deserve to know when AI assists significantly, and to what extent.

Optional question from Significa liberdade

14. Administrators are likely to receive personal attacks, including name-calling and threats of violence. How might you respond to such attacks personally and on-wiki?

A: Since admins are expected to enforce WP:CIVIL, we also need to set the example with our own behaviour by staying calm and emotionally detached. Editors are human - personal attacks most often stem from frustration or trolling, not real threats. Of course, I would report a genuine threat immediately to the WMF and other admins, per WP:EMERGENCY.

On-wiki, my response would follow WP:NPA#Responding to personal attacks; assuming good faith initially and focusing on the disputed content instead of the editor. If they persist, I'd follow up with a polite warning, then firmer ones if the personal attacks continue. I would defer to an uninvolved admin to block if necessary, to follow the conventions of WP:INVOLVED while avoiding the appearance of retaliation.

Questions from Carrite

15. How and when did you first become involved at Wikipedia?

A: Like most users, I was a reader of Wikipedia before becoming an editor. My first edit came in 2006, after reading an article about a neighbourhood in the city where I live. I saw a typo and thought "I can fix that". That first small edit gave me the confidence to try my hand at writing more. As I educated myself on the various policies, guidelines and editing culture, I made more frequent mainspace edits. My shift towards the non-admin helper role came later, when I came across the pages listed in CAT:COI. That's when I learned the extent of spam/promotional issues, and I wanted to help stem that tide.

16. Since you haven't had a chance to answer yet, I'm going to switch this question up: I notice your mainspace edits are less than 10% of your career total — and they've been less than 1% over the past two years, it's been indicated in the discussion. Why so few edits to mainspace?

A: Mainspace edits form a small part of my total because I've prioritized high-ROI maintenance: patrolling recent changes for spam/possible CSD; listing username violations at WP:UAA; reporting persistent vandalism at WP:AIV; filing WP:SPI reports; and monitoring CAT:UNB for poorly-written or LLM-written unblock requests.

These yield strong returns - stopping spammers/vandals early prevents poor content from sticking, more efficiently than prose tweaks. Twinkle's non-mainspace actions (listings at UAA/AIV/SPI, automated talk page notices, log entries) also boost my edit count significantly.

I've earned praise for policy-savvy work here, even being mistaken as for an admin already by some. This affirms its value and motivates me to ask for admin tools. I will continue with mainspace copyedits in areas that interest me, but prevention - stopping thousands of bad articles upstream - remains my core strength. This saves volunteer time, ensuring that content writers can focus on content writing.

Optional question from BugGhost

17. Your answer to Q3 stated New users often misunderstand Wikipedia’s slogan of “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit” to mean “the free website where anyone can write anything they want”. Do you mind expanding on this?

A: Some new users believe that they have the unrestricted freedom to write whatever they wish, for whatever purpose. This belief is wholly incompatible with Wikipedia's fundamental principles. It is a regulated environment, their motives must be aligned with our purpose, and certain kinds of content aren't allowed. Here are a few examples:

• A company PR person advertising their (or their client's) non-notable company
• A representative of a nonprofit organization looking to spread awareness of their noble cause
• An aspiring writer wanting a home for their fiction writing

Well-intentioned users deserve kinder guidance than blatant spammers. In any case, it's still important to communicate Wikipedia's purpose firmly and clearly. If they are interested in helping out, we must do our best to give them good guidance so we gain a constructive editor. If they are not interested, then we must tell them to seek an alternative outlet that aligns better with their goals.

Optional question from Spravato

18. If you could change any Wikipedia policy, what would you change?

A: Nothing immediately comes to mind; our policies have been refined over many years of trial and error. If I felt that a policy was not having the desired effect, or producing unintended consequences, I would discuss it informally with other editors before making any kind of formal proposal. Any change would require consensus, which is a slow and methodical process.

Optional question from VortexPhantom

19. If a company offers you to create a article on them, and you find that the company meets WP:NCORP, in return of $100. What you will do and why?

A: I would immediately decline their offer and point them towards WP:AFC. Admins are subjected to a higher standard of conduct than most editors. They are expected to be impartial, and accepting paid editing undermines that objectivity. Even if paid editing was disclosed, it would cause other editors to question whether my judgement is influenced by financial incentives. This would erode users' trust in my ability to dealing with others' conflicts of interest and CSD decisions.

20. Share your thoughts on this newly passed guideline WP:LLMPROD where a user who has determined to have a history of AI use, a series of their contributions may be assumed to violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, because LLM generated texts generally violates Wikipedia's core policies. In this case, edits to existing pages may be reverted without review, and pages where the editor is the only significant contributor may be nominated for a special proposed deletion process, LLMPROD, subject to the certain requirements. Do you think this is fair and effective against increasing AI abuse at Wikipedia or you want to make any changes?

A: In a perfect world, we would have flawless AI detection tools, and unlimited time and resources to detect and prevent AI abuse; the reality is that we never will. I think WP:LLMPROD is a balanced approach to protect the integrity of our human-written content, and our core policies of WP:V and WP:NPOV. It has specific criteria that must be met, preventing it from being used indiscriminately.

Optional question from JacobTheRox

21. If my research is correct, you haven't yet nominated or reviewed any articles at GAN, GAR, FAC, FAR, PR, etc., or really engaged in much long-term or higher-quality content creation at all. Wikipedia:Admin nominators guide (and I believe other pages) says "Editors who only revert vandalism and have not done any in-depth/significant content creation of their own have traditionally had a difficult time passing RfA.". Do you agree with this precedent and how will you work on making sure that you have the skills that long-term content creation gives without that experience? Note: I have asked the same question with the same wording to Taking out the Trash.

A: I agree with the stated precedent and acknowledge that vandal-fighter users have historically not fared well at RfA. Skills like judgement are honed from content editing, and are highly beneficial (e.g. closing AfDs) or crucial (e.g. WP:DYK, WP:ERRORS) for adminship. I would build up those standard editor skills before venturing into those types of areas as an admin.

That said, my work reaches beyond anti-vandalism: extensive experience with CSD, UAA, AIV, and unblocks. This regularly involves explaining key content policies to new editors around neutrality and reliable sourcing. I have long hesitated to run because of my low mainspace edits, but was encouraged by my nominators and others to make the attempt. I hope to set aside more time in the future to expand my work writing content and contributing more photos to Wikimedia Commons.