Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/Candidates/Sammi Brie

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful administrator election candidacy. Please do not modify it.

Final (414/50/82) (S/A/O); See official results m s k 02:22, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Nomination by Vanamonde93

Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) – This nomination is a long-awaited one. Sammi Brie has been an immensely prolific member of our community for more than a decade now. I first asked her to run for adminship nearly four years ago. She wisely declined at the time, being busy in real life, but I'm very glad she's now willing to take on the responsibility. Sammi has made enormous content contributions to Wikipedia, largely in the area of broadcasting; she has 7 FAs, an incredible 243 GAs and a host of DYK entries, in addition to performing 400+ GA reviews. Along the way she has contributed to a number of venues where the admin tools would be beneficial. For instance, she has participated in nearly 1500 deletion discussions, where her comments are marked by careful research (examples: 1, 2), and made nearly 3000 page moves. In discussions with other editors Sammi has been level-headed, tenacious, and always professional. She will be an excellent addition to the admin corps. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Co-nomination by theleekycauldron

It is my absolute honor to, at long last, put Sammi Brie forward for adminship! I know her as a true powerhouse of DYK, where she's been submitting quality creations and solid hooks like clockwork for more than a decade; she's written more than 800(!) of them (from which I'll highlight The Mutiny Hotel and KRDG (AM) as some of my favorites). You've probably seen her around, too, because in addition to her broadcasting focus, Sammi is a true polymath of project maintenance. She has experience with content, content reviews, page moves, deletions (including XfD, CSD, and PROD), template editing, antivandalism, sockpuppet investigations, categories, policy writing, and more. Sammi is reasonable, level-headed, and diligent, and I've only had and seen positive experiences working with her at DYK and elsewhere.

Sammi has been keeping me updated about the harassment she's referring to in Q3, and having seen her handle truly scary threats with nothing less than the same calm demeanor she brings to every discussion – above and beyond what I would expect of any editor – I have absolutely no doubt that Sammi is temperamentally suited for the tools. She's an exceptional editor and I wholeheartedly endorse her candidacy. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:19, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Co-nomination by HouseBlaster

After years of persuading, Sammi Brie has agreed to give adminship a shot. So, today, I am ecstatic and honored to be co-nominating this excellent editor for adminship. Her impressive content portfolio has been mentioned at length elsewhere on this page, but perhaps less well-known is her work on under-the-hood stuff. She is an avid maintainer of {{infobox television station}} and {{infobox radio station}}, dovetailing nicely with her content area of focus—I don’t think I can overstate the benefits or importance of technical maintainers being actively involved with using the templates and tools they create in the field. Her incredible work with BrieBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) added country information to thousands of articles, and, on a personal level, her guidance with implementing the mergers of {{AMQ}} and {{FMQ}} saved many editors much heartache as we dealt with the fallout from a database being frozen in time and slowly drifting out of date. I cannot recommend her for adminship enough. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 19:30, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:22, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Please disclose whether you have ever edited Wikipedia for pay: Since 2025, I have been editing as part of my work with Arizona State University (ASU) as User:Melted Brie. This account exists solely for paid editing purposes, and at no time did paid editing activities emanate from my main account. I strive to maintain the same quality standards in my work for ASU as I do in my personal editing. Should I be given administrative tools, I will take care to follow policy's very clear direction and never use the tools in conjunction with paid work.

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 a page mover with nearly 3,000 moves, including in my own topic area, which has a high share of complex moves and swaps that sometimes end up at RM/TR for want of someone who understands the subject. I have experience with AIV and SPI, particularly with topics like children's and Filipino TV that attract their share of vandals. And I have a lengthy background at AfD and other deletion processes, with 150 AfD nominations and nearly 200 proposed deletions in the last five years and participation in CfD, MfD, and TfD. These are all areas I can further support with the tools.

I have over the years shown I can be trusted with advanced permissions such as page mover and template editor. I have experience handling complex content and other disputes on the encyclopedia, including where the subject matter is delicate.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I have a large body of content work in the field of broadcasting and elsewhere. The topics I cover range from the internationally renowned to the fleeting and obscure. But the personal most meaningful piece of content I think I've worked on was my joint FA improvement of WWJ-TV, the first Black-owned TV station in the United States. The article as it stood prior to improvement did not address, with the necessary detail, that era of station history. We even noticed other news media featuring the station.

I also have a body of technical and other improvements. In 2020, I led an overhaul of {{Infobox radio station}}, {{Infobox television station}}, and {{Infobox television channel}} that harmonized parameter names and vastly decreased errors in these infoboxes used across some 27,000 articles. The latter template in particular was undermaintained and had a high (21%) unknown parameter error rate.

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: Last year, I uncovered an editor, a reasonably public figure covered in the news media, whose conduct was among the worst I've ever seen in 20 years on this project. He proceeded to harass me and two other editors off-wiki, including contacting us in professional venues, and is now globally banned. I have tried to be cordial, professional, and explanatory in disputes with other editors and to reduce the temperature.

My field of broadcasting historically had a lot of project-level consensuses that did not hold up to outside scrutiny or contradicted policies and guidelines, and over the last six or seven years, I’ve done a lot of listening to implement fixes. In 2021, I led an RfC intending to enshrine our then-extant and low notability standards for broadcasting stations as a guideline. It lost, resoundingly. Some other editors in the field were extremely disappointed. I listened and have helped bring the project in line on everything from styling of acronyms to lead sections and bloated navboxes.

Wikipedia can be a lot to take in for people not familiar with it, and breaking its policies and guidelines down to size for newer editors is often beneficial to de-escalation. Most people edit for good-faith reasons. It’s important that users, especially experienced ones, approach new users with that mindset where feasible.

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

Optional questions from 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: Because LLMs produce prose faster than humans, admins must act quickly to either contain it when it is inserted into a discussion or block users making disruptive use of AI in discussions. Wikipedia, in order to fulfill its mission, must continue to rip-and-replace AI-generated prose, which virtually always is unfit for purpose. We have risen to the challenge in developing an anti-LLM culture and cleanup infrastructure. But humans are also going to have to remember how to write like humans. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 05:21, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

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: Our unregistered and temporary users are also our readers, for whom this encyclopedia is ultimately designed. They are more likely, but not always, to make mistakes and to not understand our policies and guidelines. But that does not absolve us of the obligation to hear them out when their concerns are legitimate, nor does their status give their arguments any less merit in and of themselves. If we BITE by discounting the opinions of unregistered and temporary users—some of whom may be longtime contributors—on those grounds alone, then we fail to turn people who might have a genuine interest in contributing into registered contributors. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 05:21, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Optional questions from GGOTCC

6. You have been a contributor for more than 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: The Good Article nomination and review process. Changes were necessary in the wake of Doug Coldwell, whose articles became a poster child for necessary scrutiny of source verification and copyright violations and led to a historic mass reassessment of existing GAs. This was healthy for the project. But that also made it harder on reviewers. In the years since, a rising tide of nominees and a longer lead time have turned GAN into a slog. Right now, we have an all-time backlog of nearly 1,000 total nominees and 860+ unreviewed, with dynamics that favor fields with lots of qualified and active editors (like military history or video games). Some sort of triage system or first-pass check is going to be necessary. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 05:31, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Optional questions from Conyo14

7. What made you decide to do admin elections instead of RfA?

A: The process is more streamlined and less stressful than an RfA. And it just so happened to be pointed out to me by HouseBlaster, now one of my nominators, that AELECT was coming up after I had made a request involving information from a deleted page. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 05:53, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

8. Having a separate paid editing account may understandably raise some eyebrows when also becoming an admin. Would you consider ending your paid editing account once/if you become an admin?

A: I recognize the community's strong interest in maintaining the overall quality of articles by curtailing outside incentives like paid editing, but I think that pursuing that goal with a pledge would lead to uneven standards. I fully intend to follow the paid editing policies as written and to never use admin tools in support of my ASU work. Because of my extensive experience as an editor, I am able to ensure that my ASU work is done ethically, transparently, and in line with policies and guidelines as well as community norms—and that the people I work with at ASU will listen to my concerns over issues like NPOV. Melted Brie as a user account exists because I'm committed to doing this the right way. My goal is that my work for ASU is just as high-quality as my other contributions. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:11, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Optional questions from I2Overcome

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

A: Wikipedia is an outlier on today's internet and maybe even in today's society. It is process- and rule-driven, sometimes to a fault. We do not function like a social media platform or an AI company. That is not a challenge for what Wikipedia is; it's a challenge for potential contributors to become adjusted to that. It is very easy for us as editors to drop user warnings on talk pages and hope new users understand, but it is another level to be personable. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:11, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

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

A: Administrators are ambassadors of the project. It is up to them to communicate—in clear, concise language that is precise yet understandable—when users have issues, especially newer users less familiar with our policies and guidelines. Users shouldn't need to wade through alphabet soup just to be able to contribute, especially in an environment where good communication is essential and imperative. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:11, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Optional question from Left guide

11. Aside from possibly correcting unambiguous errors or vandalism, what would be the extent of your mainspace editing in the ASU topic area if elected?

A: Right now, I'm conducting one regular task: adding new articles with verified cited claims to be ASU alumni and athletes to the List of Arizona State University alumni set. More ASU article improvements are probably likely. There is a rewrite of Michael M. Crow in progress, and I'm also working on readying a replacement for List of colleges and schools of Arizona State University, an out-of-date table masquerading as an article. I also have in progress (and much delayed by red tape) a project to license under CC and upload dozens of ASU's images of ASU campus buildings. This activity will come exclusively from the Melted Brie account, and I will not engage this area as an administrator. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 00:32, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Optional questions from George Ho

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

A: It makes a lot of sense to me. In some way, all of us as editors have attachment to the content we create, so unfortunately it is possible to encode incivility in a strong dispute about content without that incivility ever being explicitly stated. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 18:24, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

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

A: I take two points from it:

The way people experience the Wikimedia movement right now is very different if English is not the language they are consuming.

There is a unique tension between the way we use AI and the way and reasons why AI uses us. We've shunned LLMs because they are unfit for purpose. But LLMs like us precisely because we are among the few things likely to remain truly human-generated text. WMF has correctly started to make this a monetary source for the movement by charging frontier model companies, etc. for bulk access. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 18:24, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

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: Unfortunately, I've been there, and recently. I handled the matter referred to in Q3 in about an anodyne a matter as possible when it was on-wiki. I mostly stayed out of the discussion once I had opened it and even tried to reset the discussion to "turn down the temperature, pull the discussants away from the borderline personal attacks, and refocus to the question that brought us all here". Our lines about harassment are pretty clear no matter to whom the harassment is directed, and while administrators should make an effort to remove and warn first, particularly severe or repeated attacks are subject to block. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 18:02, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Questions from Carrite

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

A: I don't remember much other than it was the summer of 2005. I was 10 at the time and I mostly edited pages related to broadcasting (a topic I loved even then) and Pokémon. I was an IP editor until November 2005, when I joined and created some really short articles and redirects (the oldest of which survives is KNAZ-TV, which I've since gone back and rewritten). I suspect my activity increased here after young me got into a dispute on another forum where I had been very active, the Nintendo NSider Forums, and took a long break there as a result.

16. Have you ever edited at Wikipedia under any other account names, and if so, what is the backstory of the multiple accounts, change of name, or clean-start?

A: Yes, I've had two changes of username. One was in 2010 because, well, when you're 10 you tend not to create good online usernames, and I hated the one I had. And one was in 2020 when I came out on the English Wikipedia. The only other accounts I have are Melted Brie for ASU (as noted above) and BrieBot, which was used earlier this year to add thousands of country parameters to uses of {{Infobox radio station}}. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:43, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Optional question from Spravato

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

A: Given that most of our policies have been refined over years or decades, with community consensus, I can't immediately think of a major change I'd want to make. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 01:11, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Optional questions from Bait30

18. Here is a hypothetical since you mentioned your work in XfD: A very prolific and productive editor uses their sandbox to create posts in the /r/imaginaryelections subreddit. At the very top of the sandbox, in huge letters, is a disclaimer that says "THIS IS A FICTIONAL SANDBOX. THIS IS NOT MISINFORMATION. DO NOT INTERPRET THIS AS REAL". Someone tags it as {{db-hoax}}. The sandbox creator contests the tag and points out the disclaimer. How would you handle this?

A: We are not a web host, but no speedy deletion criterion covers this instance. While the creator had the right to contest the speedy deletion tag in this instance, an MfD of the pages in question would proceed from that point. U6 and U7 would not apply here because of the activity of the contributor. There is even an MfD precedent for this, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Supekolo/sandbox. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 05:18, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

19. Could you please explain your decision to edit List of medical schools in the United States as both Sammie Brie and Melted Brie?

A: The list was out of date in ways that were unrelated to ASU. My edits from this account were unrelated to ASU, such as improving reference names, adding scopes for accessibility, and updating information about other medical schools. My edit summary from the first Melted Brie edit explains this: There are more non-ASU-related issues which I'm remedying from my personal account. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 05:18, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Optional question from VortexPhantom

20. 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'd decline the offer and inform them of the relevant policies and guidelines about paid editing. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:46, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

21. 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 articles?

A: The asymmetry I mention in Q4 matters here. LLMPROD is positive because it allows for quick removal of AI-generated prose. The way in which LLMPROD is written tailors it to handling particularly disruptive contributors. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:46, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

Links for Sammi Brie: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Edit summary usage for Sammi Brie

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

Please do not cast votes here. The voting phase will use SecurePoll and will occur on May 13–19 UTC.

In addition to the work on reviewed articles, Sammi Brie has a lot of solid edits to broader topics like this edit for clarification in 1994–1996 United States broadcast television realignment. Also, DYK often needs followup at WT:DYK to clarify and resolve issues in hooks, and in over 100 replies, Sammi Brie has consistently responded to concerns raised, like this recent example. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

One of my early experiences in the project-space side of Wikipedia was a few years ago, when Sammi Brie very graciously volunteered to translate/communicate with volunteer editors over on the Spanish Wikipedia about a complicated cross-Wiki copyright issue I'd gotten myself into; I can safely say I'm not used to editors going that above and beyond on issues like this. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 01:34, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Having seen Sammi's article content pop up from time to time in the WikiCup and other places, I'm glad to see this nomination as well. If her three trusted nominators aren't impressive, Sammi has proven herself more than capable in the creation of over 240 GAs and 7 FAs. And if these don't impress voters, maybe her Spanish language skills or her involvement in administrative issues such as AfDs will. Hundreds of Sammi's DYKs and GAs and most of her FAs come from before she started her paid editing gig, if anyone is concerned about that. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll just add that Sammi meets my usual admin checklist: she's been around a long time, does good work, and I can't ever recall a time when she was involved in any controversy or stupidity. RoySmith (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I was not here before Doug Coldwell was banned, but I really appreciate the answer to Question 6. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I do as well, and I'm particularly intrigued by the Some sort of triage system or first-pass check is going to be necessary bit. This isn't the venue for that discussion, but I'm eager to hear her ideas for this at WT:GAN when she's able. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I, for one, believed that Sammi Brie was an admin already. I suspect I am not alone in this matter. Good luck! Chorchapu (talk | edits) 20:10, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

AfD record: 89.1% match rate, n of 1439. Of the past 500, Sammi had 73 keep !votes, 242 delete !votes, and 96 indiscernible !votes. Subjective comment: After looking at a sample of Sammi’s !votes, I find that she often provides substantial reasoning behind her vote rather than merely vote stacking. Some !votes indicate significant additional searching through newspaper archives and other sources. That said, I did notice some nominations that merely stated per WP:GNG without additional context (something I’ve also been guilty of) (see for example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Escape (SiriusXM)). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that's a fair assessment overall. I want to lay out my own impression of short comments like that as both a regular AfD closer and the nominator who raised it. To me, "doesn't meet the GNG" is the starting point for most AfDs, and a fully valid !vote. It becomes less valid when some evidence for notability exists, either in the article under discussion or at AfD. In such cases I look for participants who address the evidence or revise their positions, and Sammi does both these things. The comment you highlight I would give full weight to, as you might have guessed, since I closed that AfD. Best, Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tagging: Sammi Brie's CSD log dates back to July 2021. Each month has a variable number of nominations, ranging from 0 to around 20; there are around 120 entries in total. The majority of listings are red links, and those that are not are almost entirely made up of completed G6 moves. You have to go back to 2022 to find a declined nomination (); overall, this log reflects very well on the candidate. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 17:01, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

As someone who works at DYK and GAN, I always see her name pop up, showing that she's totally an excellent editor and admin candidate! Its great to the point that she even has 158 articles lined up for GAN! (not including the 12 at WP:GAN) JuniperChill (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2026 (UTC) [edited 9:12, 10 May]