Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/Discussion phase

Co-nomination

I’m pleased to be co-nominating Asukite! When I look at prospective admins, there are two elements I always look for: a craft, and trust in that craft. Asukite has this and more. With over 45,000 edits going back to 2011, Asukite has done reliable anti-vandal and patrolling work (100+ AIV and UAA reports), several hundred pagemoves, and closed many dense discussions. While Asukite’s work is often uncontroversial, he is always prompt to respond to errors and questions and takes feedback in stride, as seen in his talk page history; even uncollegial editors come out pleased! Asukite has the sort of content awareness and mature judgement that is desired for the role – have no doubts he will make an excellent admin if elected. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:35, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination.

Please disclose whether you have ever edited Wikipedia for pay: I have never edited for pay, and will never accept compensation for any of my actions on Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia project. I have one alternate account, User:Asubot which I have never used and retired back in 2021. ASUKITE 20:18, 3 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: Artificial intelligence is a broad topic, and certain types of AI (such as machine learning) can be useful in the right context, but I know the key issue here is the use of large language models (LLMs). I also know I am not alone in thinking that LLMs can be detrimental to the project. Given the tendency for LLMs to hallucinate and plagiarize, I agree with our recently-established consensus that LLM-generated content in violation of our core policies should be cleaned up or removed when discovered. A good place to start is human review to ensure accuracy, verifiability, and neutrality when possible, as well as using "draftify" and review, and our deletion processes in more serious cases. LLM use in discussions can be deceptive, which may require more immediate action as per WP:AITALK to ensure our discussions are not affected, as this could have wider implications than the content of individual articles.

Editors should be given a chance to understand what our policy is and why we have it, as well as to explain whether they used AI to write something or not, as it is entirely possible to misread human writing as being AI-generated. I want to encourage editors to improve, not scare them away. My goal is to focus on helping editors, particularly newcomers, to ensure they understand the importance of careful use of any tools, especially LLMs. Competence is required, and LLMs alone are incapable of competence, even if they seem otherwise.

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: Replies in discussions should be weighed on the merits of their arguments. Whether or not an editor is registered should not affect the closer's judgement. Unregistered editors contribute greatly to our project, and should be allowed to participate wherever feasible, including in discussions. I recently opened an AfD discussion on behalf of a TA, and have offered similar help for IP editors in the past. We have tools to deal with abuse by unregistered editors, and many experienced editors know what signs to look for in these cases and can take action appropriately. Arguments should be judged on quality – focusing on policy, guidelines, evidence, and logic – not only the quantity of !votes for a particular viewpoint.

Optional question from Conyo14

6. Why did you choose to go through admin elections instead of RfA?

A: I chose the election process as the timing of the discussion phase in this particular election works well with my schedule, and having a larger pool of fellow candidates reduces the stress of being one of fewer candidates in an RfA. As the elections are scheduled in advance, the opportunity to set aside time to participate is afforded to both candidates and participants. The secret ballot also allows editors to make a decision without worrying about judgement by others, while the process still enables open discussion if desired.

Optional questions from I2Overcome

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

A: LLMs are one of the greatest challenges faced today by the project, and the internet in general. LLM content has been showing up more often in articles, drafts, discussions, and even the sources we rely on. It risks polluting our project with hallucinations and copyright infringements, and AI models have only become more accessible and effective with time. AI-generated content can violate the core policies and guidelines of our project, such as verifiability, neutrality, and copyright compatibility – reducing its factuality, reliability, and likelihood of surviving legal challenges. This imposes significant costs – our editors’ limited time, our readers’ trust, and even the viability of Wikipedia.

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

A: I have answered some of this in question 4. Much of what I included there are activities any editor can take part in. Admins in particular can act on others’ concerns, for example by carefully reviewing and processing deletion requests, closing discussions as "delete", and applying blocks and page protection when absolutely necessary. Admins can also view deleted pages, which could indicate whether an editor’s submissions may have violated WP:NOLLM and whether further review is needed elsewhere. I personally plan to use great care with any of these tools, and focus on finding consensus rather than taking unilateral action, as I want to encourage productive editing instead of obstructing it. Editor retention is also an ongoing problem which I want to help address.

Optional question from Thebiguglyalien

9. Your userpage lists "fixing POV and reverting censorship" among your editing areas. What do you look for or what types of changes do you make when you're working on this?

A: I often revert edits which appear to violate WP:NPOV, as well as removing and cleaning up articles when I find POV statements and COI editing. This can include the use of puffery, weasel words and unsourced, overly-positive statements which are not properly attributed to reliable sources, as well as disparaging statements. As for what I call "censorship", I am referring to reverting inadequately explained removal of otherwise well-sourced content which a particular editor may not like, such as controversy about an individual or organization. I haven't been doing as much of the latter lately, and if a different editor later removes something again, I treat that as an indicator that it may not belong after all. I always read edit summaries, as they can provide helpful context; a lot of edits which appear problematic lack a summary, which can make it harder to understand the motivation behind them.

I frequently catch myself double-checking the sources, and in many cases have self-reverted my own reverts, sometimes selectively. Rollback in particular can be overzealous, and I try to always check whether I've reverted more than I meant to. I review my own contribution history on a regular basis to look for errors, and in some cases will leave a talk note apologizing for a clumsy revert.

Optional questions from George Ho

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

A: I have encountered abrasive communications many times over my years on the project, from fellow editors and even admins. My opinion is that everybody should be respectful to others, regardless of standing. I have worked to develop my own communication skills over the years. Civility is important in any context – respectful communication with others is more productive and encourages collaboration. I try to focus on facts and content. Communications can be brief while remaining cordial. There were a few cases where I myself was less than cordial, or focused on behavior at venues where I should have stuck to content. I've tried to catch myself beforehand, but have apologized after the fact as well. I do not believe ego has a place in a collaborative environment, and am always willing to admit when I am wrong.

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

A: I haven't fully read it myself, but I did take a moment to skim over it. The disclaimer at the top notes that Claude was used to help write and copyedit; copyediting is a perfectly valid use for an LLM – with careful human review – but "help write" is vague. It is possible that an LLM may have been used more extensively in this case. I think the topic itself is interesting, and agree that the decline in readership and new editors is troubling. The point about concentration risk and the associated loss of talent is especially relevant, and is something I have seen outside of Wikipedia as well. I am also intrigued by the discussion about the article in the comments. It is important to have dialogue about the future of the project, and any such conversations will often include a few "big" and possibly controversial ideas, as these tend to drive discussions. (Note added 12:19, 10 May 2026 (UTC): I drafted my answer before the wording of the question was changed and did not notice the change before posting it.)

11b. Follow-up: Out of what you answered above about the Signpost piece, which ones concern you the most? From what I see, you mentioned LLM, decline in readership, decline in new editors, "concentration risk" (unsure whether it relates to the banking one), loss of talent, and reactions themselves to the Signpost piece.

A: From that article, I would say the most concerning items are the decline in both readership and editors, as they are the core of our project. "Concentration risk" in this context is referring to the idea that when there are fewer editors doing more work, the loss of a productive editor results in a greater increase in workload for those who remain.

11c. Another follow-up: What do you think are productive, if not collaborative (or both), ways to reverse or slow down the decline in both readership and editors, both part of the core of Wikipedia?

A: I think we can start by welcoming and assisting new editors and encouraging growth, treating editors with respect and giving them the tools they need, and continuing to produce articles which meet the standards of quality that our readers have come to expect. On that last point, the recent LLM guidelines are a good start. Human authorship and participation are essential, and over-reliance on LLMs can negatively affect the skill growth needed to succeed, especially given that AI may not always be as accessible as it is now. If the web continues to be polluted with AI text, being a bastion of human-written articles will help Wikipedia remain relevant and useful.

Optional question from Jacksonvil

12. Do you think that Good Faith edits should be reverted, or should it be fixed/cleaned up instead?

A: I think that it depends on the context. I use recent changes patrol tools like WikiShield to find opportunities for improvement almost as often as to revert vandalism. I have increasingly used AGF as a revert reason over the years, and always leave an edit summary explaining my reasoning when doing so. If I clean something up myself (which I often do when I have the time), I typically won't use a revert. I find using "good faith" reverts to be a time-saving alternative to opening the editor and fixing certain edits that are problematic, such as simple errors, improper embeds, non-english text, and citation removal, among others. I occasionally leave a talk note as well, if I have the time and feel it would be productive. I have also recently started using and pruning my watchlist after clearing the thousands of articles I had on it and starting fresh, which has improved my follow-up.

Optional question from Significa liberdade

13. 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: Some personal attacks can be ignored or glossed over (though I have and will admonish or revert personal attacks on others). If there is a valid point to be made about matters relevant to the project, a reply can skip the personal attack entirely and refer only to the topic at hand. This will sometimes diffuse the matter. If an editor resumes attacking, a polite redirection may help, followed by seeking assistance elsewhere if necessary, such as on a relevant noticeboard or from colleagues. I would probably consider myself too involved to block anybody directly for attacking me, but I have faith the community will respond appropriately – that said, if something appears to be obvious vandalism without any relevant wiki context, blocking after suitably warning may be appropriate. Legitimate threats of violence should be reported via email to Wikimedia Trust & Safety, and doxxing should be reported to oversight. I have taken care to protect my identity on the project and am not particularly worried, in any case, but I recognize that some bad actors may have means to unmask editors and am prepared for that possibility.

Questions from Carrite

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

A: My first edit to Wikipedia (in my memory) was back in high school, where I anonymously removed a spoiler for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince from an unrelated article (you can probably guess what it was). I later did some minor vandalism as an IP – I think I changed a few numbers in infoboxes by a small amount. I was so impressed by the speed with which I was reverted and templated that I got into reverting vandalism instead, which is mostly what I started with, having then discovered that Wikipedia has a community of its own.

15. 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: I registered Asukite in 2011 but did not use it for much at the time. I later registered Envelopesalad and used that for recent changes patrol and eventually new pages patrol. After having a little time on the project under that username, I remembered my now-current username and submitted a request to usurp it in 2013. Other than User:Envelopesalad (now defunct – I neglected to include this above as I did not think of it as a separate account as the rename process carried over my entire edit history), User:Asubot (deactivated, as noted above), and my current username, I have never used any other username, nor have I used the clean start process. I have done minor typo corrections and copyedits anonymously over the years, typically when using a shared computer, but only rarely.

Optional question from Left guide

16. While doing anti-vandalism work as an admin, when would you consider it appropriate to block a user who hasn't received any warnings?

A: Such cases have been rare in my work, but I have reported users to AIV for a single edit before – only in instances of hate speech or other similarly egregious vandalism. I think that doxxing or threats (legal or personal) could also qualify for at least a temporary block to prevent further harm, but even then I would use caution. Other situations may include obviously compromised accounts abusing permissions, egregious libel in biographies of living persons, and rapid vandalism – though I think at least one warning is warranted in those cases – unless the vandalism is time-consuming to revert, such as with page moves.

Editors should be given a chance to understand what they did wrong prior to being blocked, but in certain rare cases, more immediate action is needed. WP:BLOCK outlines some other situations and provides helpful guidelines. Sometimes partial blocks may be preferable as they are less disruptive. Blocking should be used with caution, as it results in a permanent log entry for the affected editor and can harshly impact their likelihood of returning.

Optional question from Spravato

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

A: I can't immediately think of anything I would want to change, and if I ever do think of a policy change I feel strongly about, I might discuss the potential of an RfC with other editors. Policy changes must be supported by consensus, and can be challenging to enact. I think our current policies are sufficient, but I do follow requests for comment when I see a proposed change I am interested in.

Optional question from VortexPhantom

18. 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 will never edit for pay, but I would recommend they write a draft, declare their conflict of interest, submit the article for review, and use an edit request for any future changes. I would also caution them about using paid editing services, as they can be scams.

19. 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.

A: Nice work closing that RfC! I think it is another step in the right direction, and that it gives editors necessary tools to help deal with large amounts of AI-generated content. LLMs can be prolific, and protecting our project from being overtaken by generated text is paramount. Since detecting AI text can be challenging, presumptive removal may save a lot of valuable time. I will personally use caution – I would rather not remove everything an editor has published, and the wording of the guideline is appropriately careful (a series of their contributions, may be reverted) indicating that non-problematic edits and pages can be retained. As with any new change, this guideline will likely evolve with time.

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: That's an interesting question from a technical perspective. Aside from enforcing the current policies on AI usage as written, I don't believe there's much that administrators can do to systematically limit the use of AI on Wikipedia. I will say that I believe the edit filter managers have done excellent work identifying and tagging AI-generated content where reasonably possible, though I suspect that as the technology continues to develop, it will be an arms race to try and identify new telltale signs of AI.

I think the more important role for administrators is ensuring that AI does not improperly influence the decision-making process that is seen on a day-to-day basis, like closing discussions and determining consensus. This is similar to work I already encounter at AfC and NPP. When looking at new articles, it is important to closely review anything that may come from an AI hallucination (this is part of the problem with AI, it can be generated a lot faster and at a bigger scale than it can be reviewed by volunteers). Administrators today have the difficult task of ensuring that AI-generated arguments, which may sound plausible but are technically incorrect or are a misrepresentation of cited policies and guidelines, do not influence their decision making improperly.

If I were entrusted with the tools, I would make sure to enforce the policies as the community currently expects administrators to do. I believe this includes continuing to stay aware of advancing technologies and changes to the telltale signs of AI writing and to diligently but responsibly make sure that unreviewed or incorrect writing is not kept on the project and that it is not used to influence the decisions of myself or others. It also involves staying informed of developing policies as they are reformed and adapted by the community.

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: On their face, all arguments should be weighted based on the merits, regardless of the type of account (or edit count of a registered user, for that matter) making that argument. What is important in determining consensus is the policies and guidelines that are cited in that argument and the sources present both in the argument and article, and determining how well both the P&Gs and sources may or may not support the given argument. Unregistered users play a valuable role in helping the project out, and I will always try to help a user complete a task for which they may not have the requisite tools, that is nonetheless productive (like, for example, opening an AfD discussion).

Of course, like any rule, there are exceptions. Closers should always have an eye out for the potential for sockpuppetry, and in topic areas subject to editing restrictions where unregistered or non-EC editors are not permitted to participate, those comments are typically struck and closing administrators are instructed to disregard them when assessing consensus.

Optional questions from I2Overcome

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

A: I think the greatest challenge Wikipedia faces today is editor retention. Wikipedia ultimately depends on a relatively small number of volunteers who spend enormous amounts of time maintaining articles and writing new content. Some of this work involves highly technical skills, such as developing and maintaining tools and bots, or writing modules and templates. Many of the other challenges we face (coordinated disruption, AI generated content in both source material and article writing, declining quality of research tools, paywalling of accessible source materials, and the doxxing and targeting of editors) ultimately place additional strain on that volunteer corps and add to the growing backlogs requiring more attention from our editors.

Wikipedia has historically been very good at surviving vandalism and external challenges. What concerns me more is the long-term sustainability of the community itself. If experienced editors become burned out faster than new editors can successfully integrate into the project, it becomes harder to maintain the quality and reliability that readers expect, and we may lose the reputation we've worked hard to earn, that separates us from–say–Grokipedia.

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

A: As an administrator, I would approach the editor retention challenge by focusing on reducing unnecessary friction in areas where administrators can meaningfully help. That includes acting professionally and calmly in contentious discussions, helping new editors understand policy rather than simply templating them, and making administrative spaces feel fair, predictable, and transparent.

This is a practice that I continuously try to implement in my work regardless of the permissions that I hold. I often offer guidance to new users that is particular to their specific subject area or draft article. My hope is that it (1) tells the user “they have read my work and are offering me advice specific to improving my writing directly” instead of templates that may have many links but result in banner-blindness, (2) results in improved content, and (3) is more likely to have that editor return to continue to contribute.

I would look forward to bringing this philosophy to additional areas that are routinely handled by administrators. This would include following up on CSD-deleted material, user talk interventions, and noticeboard threads, where the tone set by admins in any given discussion shapes how welcoming or unwelcoming Wikipedia feels to newer contributors, or where direct but specific advice may help in better addressing problematic behaviour. If admins model patience and good faith, that sets a standard that others are more likely to follow.

Optional questions from Left guide

8. When fielding reports at WP:UAA as an admin, how would you decide whether to a) block on sight, b) attempt to warn or discuss with the user, or c) defer the matter for community discussion?

A: All three of your options correlate with the principle that "are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish" and from that, I interpret it as a need to consider urgency and severity when using any admin tool.

Most of my experience at UAA stems from reporting accounts that combine a promotional username (i.e.: a corporate name) with promotional editing about the same, typically whose material will also qualify for G11. Those are the instances I believe blocks are acceptable. The standard warning for this type of block explains the issue of account names and PAID editing requirements as given by the foundation; editors engaged in paid promotion should (ideally) be familiar with these policies before contributing, and can be expected to follow the explanation as given in the block notice. Because a block in this scenario requires both a promotional username and promotional edits, I'm less concerned that a good-faithed editor would be incorrectly caught up in one. Blatantly offensive names that slip through the regex filter where the username and would clearly cause disruption are the other obvious case for an immediate block.

Situations calling for warnings or discussion are often less pressing in nature and not as clear-cut. Corporate names of users who are otherwise contributing appropriate content in accordance with our COI guidelines (i.e.: their material would not qualify for G11) are better handled through talk page outreach first. Ideally, these situations would be able to be addressed by notice and discussions and only if those went unaddressed or ignored, would a particular type of block be necessary (see {{uw-softerblock}}). Similarly, usernames that aren't clearly disruptive and for which a good-faithed argument could be made deserve a discussion on their talk page. Ideally, we would avoid driving away well-meaning editors over a correctable mistake or an unintentional error by someone new who wasn't entirely aware of our username policy.

Deferring the matter for community discussion would be the appropriate action in contested cases where reasonable editors could disagree, but only after first attempting to discuss with the user on their talk page. If an appropriate solution can be achieved by well meaning and calm editors in respectful dialogue, it reduces the bureaucratic headache for everyone involved and lets everyone get back to focusing on building the encyclopedia.

9. Under what circumstances would you consider it appropriate to block a user who has been reported to WP:AIV but hasn't received any warnings?

A: The standard reasoning behind requiring warnings before a block is sound: editors (especially new editors) may not know they are doing anything wrong and our tiered warning gives them a fair chance to self-correct before a more serious consequence. I do not want to abandon that principle lightly. An unwarned block about someone confused about policy, especially one who is otherwise on the path to becoming a productive editor, will cause serious frustration if not the loss of an editor entirely.

However, there may be times when other policies might necessitate taking a more definitive approach to prevent harm to the project or other users. If the nature of the vandalism makes it impossible to assume good faith, such as slurs, targeted harassment, harmful hoaxes into BLPs, then I could envision a scenario where the actions may necessitate an immediate block. But on the whole, I would be reluctant to block without at least attempting contact. I remember reading somewhere that a warning costs very little, and in the unfortunate event that a block is necessitated later, it only bolsters the validity of the subsequent block (see also: WP:ROPE).

Lastly, there is an area of the project where it may be more beneficial to block without warning: clear sockpuppet accounts whose username or vandalism patterns match an existing SPI or LTA. Here it would be more beneficial to block without spilling WP:BEANS. But in areas where discretion may be preferable, I would likely first consult admins who have more tools than I (CUs) to handle and confirm any suspicions, especially if the matter weren't pressing.

Optional questions from George Ho

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

A: It looks to me like it is important to read it together with immediately preceding "Being right isn't enough" too. Together, I think the wording fairly represents an intersection between our civility policy and a realization that editors working in collaborative spaces will naturally run into disagreements that require communication or bureaucratic dispute resolution procedures. Inherently, human nature and our ability to communicate in a text-based medium here may also be a limiting factor but ultimately, I think if you are communicating about another editor's work it is important to be pleasant and respectful.

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

A: That's an interesting article that I hadn't seen, thank you for linking it. On a personal note, I am a bit of a stats nerd, so I always appreciate digging into the numbers. I am always cautious that numbers are always only part of the story, and can be used to support many (sometimes even conflicting) arguments. I'm not saying I think the author was misrepresenting anything, rather it's something I always consider when I see people try and tell a story with numbers. With regard to that article, I think it raises some interesting questions and my mind went to "oh, there's probably a study design that could test that" or "I bet there's data somewhere that could tease out some confounding or explanatory variables here".

On the whole, I'm glad there are people interested in monitoring these things and who are clearly interested in the long-term health of the project. With regard to LLM usage, I did try to approach the article with fresh eyes, but I got caught up in some of the more tell-tale signs, and I think it will be unfortunate if that ends up being the main takeaway.

Optional question from Significa liberdade

12. 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: Thankfully, I've never found these types of situations stressful. I like to try to remember "you don't know what someone else is going through on the other side of the screen" and escalating is always going to be counter productive. On-wiki, it would depend on the source. If it stemmed from a content dispute I'm involved in, I'm plainly too close to it to use admin tools. I'd step back, note my involvement, and leave any action to another administrator. If the situation warranted oversight, I'd flag it for that team discreetly. Beyond that, I'd do no more than I would as a regular editor.

If it isn't coming from a content dispute but rather straightforward abuse or petty provocation (and assuming there isn't an WP:ADMINACCT to address), I'm a big fan of the WP:DENY policy, as engaging rarely serves anyone and just rewards the behaviour. The same recusal logic applies here too: if admin tools are needed, someone uninvolved should wield them.

However, threats of violence are different and should not be casually ignored. Whether to myself or others, I would follow the procedure as outlined on Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm closely.

Questions from Carrite

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

A: I first became involved on Wikipedia seriously when I noticed a gap in Wikipedia's coverage. I spent probably about a week collecting sources, furiously reading project pages on advice about writing, looking at other article's text in the source editor to figure out how to format and write an article before submitting it to AfC. I loved every moment of it, from learning more about the topic as I researched, to grouping similar ideas and fleshing out article structure and writing. Once I thought I had a handle on it, I wanted to learn more and become more involved to see what else I could help out with, and that has more or less been my guiding principle since.

14. 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: Back in high school, I had an account that I used to fix a handful of typos. I didn't use it long enough to remember the username. I returned to Wikipedia (as mentioned above) when I was mostly through grad school.

I have done a name change once on this account. I took the name (well, similar) from a foil in a Hemingway novel; a character who probably takes himself too seriously, thinks he is better read, more well-spoken, and tougher than he actually is. I think that it's a funny but subtle self-deprecating reference to carry on a project where we're all just here to build an encyclopedia, but there isn't much more to read into it than that.

Optional question from Spravato

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

A: Nothing jumps out at me as working so poorly that I would feel the need to unilaterally decided to change it. Frankly, I would hate the idea of imposing my will on the community, part of the reason why the project works well is that any proposed changes get to be reviewed and discussed by editors with more experiences and varied skills than one editor can bring to the table. No editor, regardless of technical permissions, is more important than another, and it's precisely this process that gives any credibility to our P&Gs.

Optional question from VortexPhantom

16. 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 probably get a good chuckle out of it and then immediately decline for multiple reasons, least of which because I'd rather spend any writing time I have on articles that I want to work on.

In all seriousness, I have no intention of ever editing for pay; nor would I use administrator tools for pay if entrusted with them, for that matter. I would make them aware of the Foundation's Terms of Use at WP:PAID and our WP:COI guidelines, and probably caution them on WP:SCAMs. I might even keep an eye on the article title and look out for UPE and PROMO as well.

17. 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 in Wikipedia?

A: I think it reflects the needs of the project to ensure truth and accuracy through WP:V and the unfortunate reality of the limitations of editor time. I've mentioned in my earlier responses that AI-generated content can be made faster than it can be reviewed, while volunteer time is limited and valuable. In an ideal world where we have infinite resources, every suspected AI-generated addition could be reviewed and verified for truth and if found incorrect, be addressed on a case by case basis. But we know that we have to balance very important considerations, especially in areas like BLP where incorrect information can have serious repercussions. My hope is that it wouldn't be used punitively but in defence of the project and out of an abundance of caution.

Optional question from Rjjiii

4. What differences have you found when writing about living people (like filmmaker Maj Wechselmann) compared to writing about historical people (like poet Alf Henrikson) within Wikipedia's policies?

A: The clearest policy related difference is that the biographies on living people policy is more strict when it comes to sourcing. Everything in a BLP should be attributable to a reliable source, especially information that might be contested. For most information, we want sources to be independent and secondary as well as reliable; that applies to all articles, but in a BLP it is particularly important. The BLP policy applies not only in articles about living people, but in all other articles, as well as other pages like talk pages and drafts: if there is a claim about a living or recently deceased person, editors have to be extra careful about using reliable sources of a high quality.

Optional question from Mesocyclonic93

5. If a user, for example, was partially-blocked from the Template: namespace for edit warring on a template past the final warning, and immediately vandalised a mainspace article right before they were p-blocked, what do you think an administrator should do about it?

A:. This is a bit context dependent: there are situations when the article vandalism would merit a block, but assuming that there is not a pattern of mainspace vandalism, they should get a warning, probably a strongly worded warning (again depending on the context) before extending the block. That they received a p-block indicates that there wasn't such a pattern. I should also mention that a block for edit warring tends to be a full rather than a partial block.

Optional questions from Robert McClenon

6. 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: As an administrator, what I would be able to do is enforce the relevant policies (and guidelines, where applicable) by deleting pages that violate them and blocking users who are clearly not prepared to follow Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines in this area. It can be harder to identify a persistent LLM user than, say, a promotion-only account, so blocking users for LLM misuse can’t be done lightly. But I very strongly feel that it is important to enforce WP:LLM and WP:AITALK.

7. 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: They should be given the same weight, which is to say, arguments based on policy should carry the same weight whether the user making the argument is a TA or a registered editor. A good argument is a good argument, regardless of who makes it. There are situations where TAs are not allowed to participate in a discussion (for example if there is an extrended-confirmed restriction in place), but that is a different issue.

Optional questions from GGOTCC

8. Your user page states that you have a PhD in linguistics (congratulations!) What is your stance on users citing a formal education in a topic to justify their opinions regarding article content?

A: (thank you!) I have a lot of respect for experts who edit Wikipedia – the encyclopedia needs people who are able to evaluate sources, which to my mind is the main advantage of being a subject expert. However, we can't know for certain that someone has this expertise just because they say so, and in any case having an academic degree does not mean that somebody is familiar with Wikipedia's content guidelines. In practice, users who use their education as an argument in a content discussion often (by no means always!) use it to argue for the inclusion of content that is not appropriate, and that's of course not on. But a user taking a more big-picture stance from the POV of their area of expertise can point at important information that is missing, and base that on reliable scholarly sources, much more easily than somebody who is not an expert.

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: I think it is AI use, in particular the use of LLMs. There are many editors who, in perfectly good faith, add LLM generated prose and sources to articles because they are not aware of why it is problematic to do so. There are many people who might be aware of it but do not really care, because they have been hired to promote something and so their primary interest is in making their client happy. And it is time consuming, sometimes frustrating, and often difficult to show that some piece of text was written by an AI tool rather than by a human. It can be very frustrating to try to discuss with a user who is using an AI to write their responses. And fixing the problems introduced by such tools also takes time (for all editors who work on that, not primarily for admins).

This is very concerning not just because it takes a lot of time and resources today, but the more LLM hallucinated information written in an “AI polished” style makes it into Wikipedia, the more such information and such prose is going to be used to train the data sets, so this is a long-term worry for the future.

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

A: I did address it in my response to Q6 above, but I will add that since the Wikipedia community has decided not to allow LLM generated text, we can hopefully fill an educational function and make more people understand what the problems are. Again, that is not primarily an admin task, it is a task for all editors, admins included, but it is particularly important that admins do enforce the relevant policies and guidelines using the admin toolset (without trusting blindly to what other AI tools tell us about the likelihood of a text being AI generated.)

Optional questions from RoySmith

11. I originally came here to ask about your SPI clerkship, but I see that you've already talked about that briefly above. Still, I would like to see you explore that further. Without going into any details of your personal life that you prefer not to cover in public, could you tell us more about what has changed? As part of my clerkship recruiting spiel, I often tell prospective applicants that success at SPI clerking will be a strong indicator of their ability should they eventually run for admin. Why should (and my apologies if this sounds harsh) the converse not also be true? RoySmith (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

A: I don't think you are unduly harsh – it is a fair observation, and a reasonable question to ask. As I mentioned above, there were several things that coincided, and I suffered the after-effects for some time. It was really unfortunate, not least because I think I would have been a pretty good SPI clerk, and I do see that the whole thing does not reflect well on me. However, one thing I can say for sure is that if I'd run into events that would make it necessary for me to withdraw from active editing, I would not handle it in the same way.

Optional question from VortexPhantom

12.: This a question about your past AfD participation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raj Shamani, where you voted for delete giving reasoning of promotional article but result was "keep" for NBIO, didn't you check for GNG, what other factors made you believe it should be deleted since promotional content can be removed easily and paraphrase for NPOV, if subject is notable, be how will interpret you that case today?

A: First, yes, promotional text can be rewritten and promotional content can be removed, and that is actually a point I have made more than once in AfD discussions. The full rationale for my “delete” !vote in that discussion said "this is a promotional fluff piece about a person who does not appear to be notable at this point. That he has interviewed notable persons does not make him notable, since notability is not inherited." So what I was saying there was actually that the person did not seem to be notable, and the "promotional puff piece" wording was not my main argument. I admit that I don't remember this article or the discussion, which took place 6 months ago, but I always perform a WP:BEFORE search for sources showing notability. I still do not believe that the article did show notability per WP:GNG (here is a link to the article as it looked when nominated for deletion). I could review each of the sources again, but I don’t think this is the right place to rehash the deletion discussion; feel free to ask followup questions here or on my talk page.

While I disagree with some of the "keep" arguments, in the end there was a clear consensus in favour of keeping the article, so I do not disagree with the admin who closed the discussion as "keep". It's in the nature of things that consensus sometimes goes against us.

Optional question from Left guide

13. Under what circumstances would you consider it appropriate to block a user who has been reported to WP:AIV but hasn't received any warnings?

A: If the user has made egregious personal attacks or particularly nasty blp violations. Instances of rapid-fire vandalism to multiple pages can merit an instant block without a warning, because blocks are there to protect the encyclopedia. Users who make legal threats should be blocked until the threat is retracted. Blatantly obvious sockpuppets can be blocked without a warning; in most cases those should be reported at SPI rather than AIV, but there are cases where it is appropriate to block a sock who walks and quacks like a duck.

Optional questions from George Ho

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

A: I think it is a sensible principle. We are here to build an encyclopedia, a content-focused purpose, but that work becomes less efficient, and less interesting and fun for the editors, if there are no standards of conduct. I believe that most people want to be able to get along and cooperate with their fellow humans, but in a community where the participants are very diverse, and our only means of communication is text on a screen, there has to be a focus on how we do communicate, not only on the information we present.

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

A: I interpret this question to be about my attitude towards using an LLM there, rather than about what I think of the article itself; I'm afraid I am not very positive towards it. I am, frankly, not interested in reading an article where an LLM has been used to "help write and copyedit" the text. I see too many of the negative effects of that kind of usage elsewhere in Wikipedia (and outside it), and although a skilled writer can certainly use an LLM without getting the negative effects, I fail to see why a skilled writer would want and need to use it at all.

Questions from Carrite

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

A: For several years, I was very actively involved in the Open Directory Project (DMOZ). In 2006 there was a long stretch of time when dmoz.org was down, and after a few weeks I created a Wikipedia account so I could contribute to a similar project.

17. 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: When I got my first smartphone I thought I might need an account to use on that, so I created User:Bonadeaphone but very soon realised that I didn't actually need it. The account is linked from my user page, but has been dormant for a long time. I haven't used any other accounts.

Optional question from BugGhost

18. Could you describe a time where you made a mistake, how you dealt with it, and what you learnt from that experience?

A: One instance from some years ago was in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunil Subramani where I responded to a comment with an explanation of why the sources were not sufficient; unfortunately my explanation wasn’t correct because I’d confused an aspect of WP:V with an aspect of WP:NOR. Another editor kindly pointed that out to me, I admitted my mistake, and I have not mixed WP:PRIMARY and WP:SPS up since then.

Optional question from Spravato

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

A: I can't think of one. And if I were an admin it would not give me any especial authority to modify policies if I wanted to! (in fact, an admin has to be careful to use their admin tools in line with existing policies.)

Optional question from Yelps

20. If you were to become an administrator (which I truly hope so!), then what area of being an admin would you prefer to work in the most? For example, would you mostly specialize in article deletions? Or user blockings? Or try to be a general-purpose admin?

A: This is a good question! I would certainly start in the areas I feel confident within, such as handling clear instances of vandalism reported to AIV, and CSD tagged pages that obviously meet the criteria. It is hard to say whether I would come to prefer one specific area; I would like to develop into a general-purpose admin, but I don’t think I would ever be fully comfortable in all the possible areas where an admin can use their tools. Thank you for your kind words!

Questions from SaTnamZIN

21.Please don't laugh at my question. But as you are NPR for years, do you think (removed) was correct looking at their (removed) check? Do you think their understanding of Notability is competent enough?

I hope you to be an Administrator, so I am asking this so that we can get a conclusion from you as someday you will be one of the decision makers to grant and revoke rights.

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: I always try to engage the problem at its source: the editor. Whenever I revert or otherwise prune AI-generated edits, I also make sure to remind the editor on Wikipedia’s standards on AI use. While I don’t always get through, I had some success turning a few AI-abusing editors into productive ones. I don’t think having admin tools would change my approach.

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: Discussions (ideally) are decided by the merits of the presented arguments, not their quantity or source. Socking is easier when logged out, but WP:TAIV gives closers the tool necessary for scrutiny.

Optional questions from GGOTCC

6. As another review at Articles for Creation, do you believe AfC is overly harsh or lenient regarding drafts?

A: It is difficult to tell because different reviewers work on different parts of the queue. Those who work on the front of the queue (god bless) filter out the bulk of the AI/paid slop, so they naturally have a low acceptance rate. Reviewers like me work on a random basis, leading to a relatively high acceptance rate. Occasionally, I do observe and remind overzealous new reviewers who apply a criteria which extends beyond AfC's purpose of accepting articles that have a >50% chance of passing WP:AfD. But as a whole I think we get the balance right. edited 01:37, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Optional questions from I2Overcome

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

A: I believe Wikipedia has become too unapproachable for newcomers with its myriad of policies and processes. While the number of active editors has held steady, the number of active editors with fewer than 25 edits has decreased over the years. Take, for example, article creation. When a new editor submits a draft through the mandated AfC process, they can expect to wait an average of a month for a review. If the draft is declined (~80% of drafts), that is another month of waiting. Even when a draft is eventually accepted, it can take 2–3 months before it appears in search engines due to the NPP's slow processing speed. By then the editor in question would have likely forgotten they even wrote an article.

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

A: I always try to explain the spirit of the guideline in plain acronym-free English to newcomers. I am also interested in helping to clear the unblock queue, though I will seek mentorship from an experienced admin before jumping in.

Optional questions from Significa liberdade

9. Given your specific interest in deleting G11 and G15 articles, can you describe how you determine whether an article is merely promotional or unambiguously promotional, as well as whether an article is LLM-generated without human review?

A: I consider an article to be G11-able if one were to prune all its puffery away, nothing of substance would be left. For G15, I look for signs of personal engagement by the author, rather than rigidly applying the G15 subcriteria. Before tagging, I look for signs in article text, talk, and history that indicates at least a portion of the draft is human written. If so, I don't tag for G15, but leave a comment noting common pitfalls of AI-generated content. edited 23:28, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

11. 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: I would not take such attacks personally and would exercise WP:DENY as much as possible. For straight-up trolls, I would report them to WP:AIV (since I would be too involved to block). For otherwise good-faith users who become frustrated, I would remind them of Wikipedia's norms on civility WP:CIVIL without engaging with the attacks beyond a request to retract them. For realistic and specific threats of violence, I would email the Wikimedia emergency contact.

Optional question from Left guide

10. 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: I would first verify that my deletion was correct. If so, I would remind the editor of Wikipedia's purpose and guidelines on advertising and privately email them a copy if requested. Beyond that, as an AfC reviewer, if the editor is genuinely passionate about creating a quality article (not a WP:BOSS-type situation), I have coached several editors in this regard to help them improve their drafts.

Optional questions from George Ho

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

A: I think it's a good principle. It's ok to be blunt sometimes, but comments have to be constructive and offer new arguments each time, addressing why one disagrees with an edit rather than labeling them in derogatory ways.

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

A: I found the essay to be illuminating and it reenforced my pre-existing beliefs on the importance of new editors. But the prose was dripping with that specific LLM brand of cheesiness which I dislike, making for a poor reading experience.

Questions from Carrite

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

A: I started editing around 2021 when I clicked the blue link in a Citation needed tag, discovered the button reading "I can help! Give me a random citation to find!", and followed suit. My first few edits were made anonymously, adding references, before I created an account.

14. 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: I shared too much about myself on my first account than I was comfortable with. My old account was never blocked, nor was it under a cloud, as my nominators have attested to. The name change to Ca was simply for vanity. I saw that the two-letter name was usurpable, and took the opportunity.

Optional question from Spravato

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

A: I believe the current Notability guidelines read overlong, confused, and newcomer-unfriendly (starting from its name!). I think the community needs to come to an agreement on what exactly the spirit and purpose of notability is. The guidelines would then benefit from a re-write starting from that framework.

Optional question from VortexPhantom

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

A: I have no plans to become a paid editor. However, if I were to advise a paid editor, I would recommend that they read WP:PAID, disclose their financial conflict of interest, and submit through the WP:AfC process. edited 05:50, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

17. 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?

A: Yes, there is a discrepancy of effort needed to produce AI-generated edits and the effort needed to clean them up. LLMprod helps reduce that gap. But dialogue with the AI-abusing editor is always important as a first step. Ca ^{talk to me!} 23:52, 10 May 2026 (UTC) edited 23:52, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

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.

Optional question from Rjjiii

4. Could you describe one thing (of your choosing) that has changed on Wikipedia from the early 2000s to now?

A: There was certainly a very different philosophy around gaining adminship back then. Back then it was seen as an ordinary housekeeping role of relatively little significance, and so it was consequently a lot easier to obtain. I can't remember the exact criteria, but generally anyone seen as trustworthy, with a year or two of experience and a clean record could generally hope to gain it with a simple vote. That is one of many things that has become far far stricter since then. G-13114 (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Optional questions from Robert McClenon

5. 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: If I saw it obviously being used, I would warn the perpetrator, and then block them if they persisted in accordance with WP:LLMDISRUPT. G-13114 (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

6. 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: Wherever unregistered users have the same voting rights as registered ones, I would weigh their contributions on their merits. G-13114 (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Optional question from Left guide (1)

7. You were last an admin in 2011. Partial blocks were enabled in 2020. In your own words, can you please describe if, when, and how you would use them instead of sitewide blocks?

A: Yes there's a lot to get up to speed on. I think partial blocks would be appropriate to use in the case of things like simple 3RR violations. Sitewide blocks should probably only be used sparingly in cases of serious disruption. G-13114 (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Optional question from Conyo14

8. What made you decide to do an admin election instead of an RfA?

A: Mainly because I saw the election being advertised and decided to throw my hat in the ring. G-13114 (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Optional question from Cabayi

8a. Follow up question to Conyo14's #8 : If you had had more time to prepare your candidacy what would you aim to improve?

A: I'm not sure I would change anything to be honest. G-13114 (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Optional question from Femke

9 The rules and expectations surrounding tool use have changed since you were an admin before. Could you explain your understanding of how expectations have changed, limited to what is relevant for your intended use of the tools (e.g. wheel warring, maybe protection, 3RR enforcement)?

A: Having read through the literature, I don't think that the basics have changed that much from what I remember to be honest, you are still supposed to treat them as a privilege to be used in accordance with broadly the same rules as I remember. I don't think I ever engaged in wheel warring, and don't plan to. Certainly the rules around 3RR don't seem to have altered that much. Protection has changed in so far as there are now more grades of protection (there used to be only semi-protection and full protection available) but I think I can get to grips with that change. G-13114 (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Optional questions from I2Overcome

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

A: At the moment I think AI presents a challenge, especially if it continues to improve. However I would hope that there is still a demand for a man-made product, free from any hallucinations. G-13114 (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

11. Self-nominations for adminship, while permitted, are rarely successful. Why did you choose to self-nominate instead of asking another experienced editor to nominate you?

A: I tend to avoid interaction with other users, preferring to keep to myself and get on with work, so consequently I am relatively unknown, so consequently I'm not sure who I should ask who knows me to give me a nomination. This is not I think a deficiency in my abilities, and would hope it isn't seen as such. G-13114 (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Optional questions from Significa liberdade

12. In Q1, you state that you may be interested in page moving and blocking vandals. Can you describe your experience related to these specific areas?

A: When I was an admin before, those were the areas I used to be most active in. I would also involve myself in WP:RM and help out there. G-13114 (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

12a. Follow-up question: Given that you were last an admin in 2011, can you provide details about the work you've done in these areas since then, especially given the changes that have occurred in the past 15 years?

A:

Optional question from A412

13. In an AfD, you !vote keep with for now, it has the potential to become very significant, so deleting it now would be premature, and at another you !vote keep with Just because no one has been back to look at it since, doesn't mean that there won't be more in the future. What is your general approach towards and view on policy regarding subjects that may become more notable in the future?

A: I might be mistaken, but I'm unaware of any specific policy in this area. In those particular cases I saw it as pointless to delete an article that might have to be recreated in the future. G-13114 (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Followup from VortexPhantom

13b. Do you know Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, hence articles can't be kept just for the reason that it may meet notablity guideline in the near future?

A: I will take that on board in the future. G-13114 (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Optional questions from EaglesFan37

14. In Q1, you name moving pages and blocking vandals as responsibilities you'd do as admin. At the moment, you have zero edits to WP:AIV, and you haven't reapplied for WP:Page Mover since your request was declined in 2020 . How would receiving adminship specifically enhance your activities on Wikipedia that are unable to be accomplished through other permissions?

A: I had completely forgotten about that, thanks for reminding me. Well I always revert vandalism when I see it. At the moment specifically I see lots of violations of 3RR go unpunished from disruptive users, as it is generally easier to deal with it by multiple people reverting their edits then go through the laborious process of engaging with admins. I feel this is wrong, and I would be able to save more people time and energy if I was able to deal with these incidents myself. G-13114 (talk) 10:38, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

15. In Q11, you responded that I tend to avoid interaction with other users, preferring to keep to myself and get on with work. As an admin, how do you plan on interacting with other Wikipedians?

A: I certainly do interact with others when necessary, I am often active on several project talk pages for example, where I discuss various topics. I just naturally tend to avoid unnecessary interaction. G-13114 (talk) 10:38, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Optional questions from George Ho

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

A: Well anything which makes wikipedia an unpleasant environment should be prohibited, so I agree with it G-13114 (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

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

A: It certainly raises awareness of some unsettling trends, although I'm not sure whether I agree or not with the proposed solutions. G-13114 (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Questions from Carrite

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

A: From memory it was back in 2003. My Uncle showed me how to edit wikipedia for the first time and I was hooked after that. G-13114 (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

19. 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: I used to edit as G-Man in the 2000s until 2009. From memory I got into a long dispute, I think about date linking, which badly affected my mental health (I was suffering from depression at the time) so I took a long break from Wikipedia of 18 months. When I came back I decided it would be better for my mental health if I clean started with a new account. However as it was so long ago now, I don't mind admitting the link between the two accounts. G-13114 (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Optional question from Spravato

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

A:

Optional question from VortexPhantom

21. 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: That's highly unlikely, and I would decline the offer as I feel it is unethical. G-13114 (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

22. 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 usage in articles?

A: I think it's fair, although whether it will be effective remains to be seen.

G-13114 (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Optional question from Left guide (2)

23. When encountering vandalism as an admin, how would you determine whether to warn or block a user?

A: I think it depends on the urgency of the situation. If a user is vandalising and edit warring with multiple reverts then an emergency block would be in order. Otherwise in many cases where a user has only made one or two edits a simple revert and warning would be enough, and if they continue, then a block. G-13114 (talk) 14:08, 11 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: I think the goal should be to keep content generated by artificial intelligence out of mainspace and consensus-building discussions (which lead to changes in mainspace). This can be done mostly without administrator tools. Besides following through with G15 and other applicable guidelines like WP:NEWLLM or anything that may develop in the future I don't know how much being an administrator will help more than the tools I already have in this area.

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: Barring circumstances where individual editors are using multiple temporary accounts in attempts to make a point of view seem to have more support (which - there are ways to remedy this when it's identified), closing a discussion should put as little weight as possible on the people involved and focus on the content of their arguments. An unregistered editor's argument should be considered just as much as that from a registered editor.

Optional question from Conyo14

6. What made you decide to do an admin election instead of an RfA?

A: I was considering an RfA in February, but circumstances outside of my control put me in a position that would make this bad for my mental health. By the time April rolled around and I felt ready, it made more sense for me to wait and join the cohort of admin nominees for the May election rather than creating an RfA independently.

Optional questions from I2Overcome

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

A: Wikipedia needs more editors who will work to improve existing articles. Plenty of folks are happy to create new articles, and there are definitely places where that's needed like WikiProject Women in Red, but Category:Articles with unsourced statements isn't going to be made any smaller without people willing to work on less glamorous tasks like finding missing references.

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

A: Editor retention is a big part of this. I hope that of the many folks I interact with in my capacity as an editor give them a positive outlook that leads them to continue working on the project wherever they find interesting.

Optional question from Chaotic Enby

9. What's your favorite lagomorph?

A: Swamp rabbit. See footage.

Optional question from VortexPhantom

10: Have you done anything in the past related to Wikipedia, which you regret today that you may have handled it more correctly, if that happens today.

A: There are things I have done on Wikipedia in the past that could be seen as embarrassing, like the example I gave for question 3, but without those experiences I wouldn't learn how to avoid them or handle them better now.

Optional questions from Dafootballguy

11. What tools do you have that you feel will make you suitable to be an administrator?

A: I am not sure what this question is asking - an administrator is defined by their tools, so if I had those tools I would already be an administrator and wouldn't have to be nominated for the role.

12. Can you briefly explain how the edit filters work?

A: Edit filters compare edits against set parameters and, if the edit matches, perform an action such as preventing the edit, warning the editor, or just logging it.

Optional question from Left guide

13. While working at NPP or AfC, you encounter a page tagged for G10 that speaks disparagingly about a living person with a citation to a reliable paywalled source you can't access to verify the content. How would you handle the situation as an administrator?

A: A page can be deleted under G10 criteria only if there are no good (neutral, non-disparaging) revisions that it can be reverted to. If that's not the case, and there is no way to alter the page such that the negative bent is removed (if the disparagement is an accusation of crime or similar), deletion seems appropriate. There are a lot of options besides deletion first given this broad hypothetical situation. Resource Exchange is another avenue to look at if I need the source and/or a second opinion before making a decision.

Optional questions from George Ho

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

A: This principle makes sense. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, and engaging in communication that encourages participation should not be optional if you are part of the project.

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

A: There is not much insight I could provide that has not been exhaustively discussed in the discussion section below that article. I generally align with Viriditas and ArtemisiaGentileschiFan.

Optional question from Significa liberdade

16. 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. Unless there is other actionable content alongside a personal attack, actionable as in something that can be done on-wiki, I tend to not respond to them. It's just not productive. If a threat is serious enough to be reported, it can be reported quietly.

Questions from Carrite

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

A: I started editing because I noticed in my studies and work that quite a few of the chemical substances in our labs did not have Wikipedia articles, and after a couple years of being annoyed about that because it made it take a couple more steps to find relevant information through PubChem rather than just searching for it on Wikipedia, I started taking the task upon myself. Of course after a little while I realized there were too many chemicals to do this all on my own and moved on to other editing pastures.

18. 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: I have not edited under any other account names.

Optional questions from Wikipedian12512

19. In your honest opinion, what is the one greatest thing that might get you disqualified from admin status?

A: I do not have any knowledge of regular expressions and by extension the language used to write edit filters, so that part of Wikipedia is currently obscured to me. I don't see this as a 'disqualifier' since there's no requirement that I work in that area, but without any other good answers I thought I would provide a potential weakness.

20: What would you do if you didn’t become an admin? Would your efficiency/edits/value of edits increase, decrease, or stay the same? Why?

A: I don't think anything would change about my editing habits. I don't claim to be able to predict the future either.

Optional question from Spravato

21. If you could change any Wikipedia policy, what would you change

A:

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)

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: I don't have much of an opinion on it; as I said below: humans should write the articles themselves but they could use AI assistance for data gathering etc.; and in discussions arguments should be written by a user in their own language but one could use AI tools to like summarise a lengthy page etc. But, in my experience LLMs most of the time gets WP policies wrong so it's better not to use it for that purpose.

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: Regardless of whether the user is registered or not, an argument's weight would depend on the argument itself. Personal opinions such as WP:IDONTLIKEIT shouldn't be given much attention even if its from an experienced user; similarly if it's a policy-based argument from anyone it should be given attention to. Although if it's a new/unregistered user just quoting a policy without any explanation; then it's weight should be decided based on the context of the argument and the discussion. Something I have encountered in the past is that new users posting well-explained-arguments which are in-fact just LLM generated arguments - in such cases they should be ignored.

Optional questions from voorts

6. Why did you decide to self nom?

A:

7. You say you don't think you'll edit for pay anytime soon. Why are you leaving open the possibility that you may engage in paid editing in the future?

A: Terrible word-choice that's all, what I meant by "anytime soon" is "never".

Optional questions from Czarking0

8. Do you think that in 20 years LLM technology will be ubiquitous like the internet is today?

A: LLM technology is definitely going to grow and become inevitable to avoid. I believe the best way to go is to adapt and covert positively; for example instead of banning the usage completely (but WP:NOLLM should stand; it's better if humans write the articles themselves but they could use AI assistance for data gathering etc.) we could make better use of LLM by incorporating it. Here is an example: User:Alaexis/AI Source Verification and User:Polygnotus/Scripts/AI Source Verification, which uses AI to verify a claim with the citation. It is an under-development script but once it's completed; it could be used for source verification in GAN, FAC, FLC etc. There are similar other ways to make responsible use of LLM. Maybe a far-fetch but possibly someday WMF could develop their own LLM as well.

9. How do you plan to balance anti-LLM reactionary sentiment with adopting new technologies when a new editor admits to good faith usage of LLM technology to assist with their edits?

A: The content they added will need to be checked and cleaned-up by experienced users meanwhile the new user should be advised to not do that anymore.

Optional question from Conyo14

10. What made you decide to go through admin elections again instead of RfA?

A: No specific reasons; I would be open for a RfA or RRfA anytime.

Optional question from ClaudineChionh

11. What have you learned about your suitability for adminship since your candidacy in AELECT2?

A:

Optional questions from I2Overcome

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

A: LLMs definitely. One thing is that LLM-generated content is getting better and undetectable which make it harder for editors to even identify LLM-generated pages. Another thing is viewership: since the invention of AI technology more and more users prefer to just get the simple summary from a chatbot rather then spending their time to read through Wikipedia articles; this is affecting Wikipedia's annual viewership badly. See the differences in the viewership figures between Wikipedia:2024 Top 50 Report and Wikipedia:2025 Top 50 Report.

13. Self-nominations for adminship, while permitted, are rarely successful. You ran self-nominated in a previous election and were unsuccessful. How would you explain your decision to run self-nominated again now to someone who might be concerned about how it reflects upon your judgement as a potential administrator?

A:

Optional question from Fanfanboy

14. What would you say to editors who expressed concerns about hat collecting during your AELECT2 run? Would you say think you have adequately addressed those concerns?

A: Never got to explain it; It was an unfortunate timing really. I was just trying to help out in any possible way I could but, my fault for not realising the implications of the behavioural block I had and even I understand now that I shouldn't have participated in last year's AELECT and was not eligible enough for it with the history of that. Since then, I have been better-behaved specially in regard to conflict-resolving with fellow editors.

Optional question from JayBeeEll

15. Aside from the hat-collecting issue mentioned in Q14, you received a number of other very concrete criticisms in Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Candidates/Vestrian24Bio#Discussion. Do you feel that any of those were not valid at the time, or were valid at the time but are not any longer?

A: 1) hat-collecting, explained above; 2) Paid editing disclosure: I have disclosed it in detail although some concern regarding the wording was raised but I've addressed it now. 3) Edit summary usage: I have learnt from my previous run that I was not leaving proper edit summaries, but since then I have started to leave more meaningful edit summaries, this shows the improvement in my edit summary usage in the months since (~66% average before; over 90% since; and over 95% in the last 6 months). 4) Then-recent behavioural block; have addressed above.

Optional question from Dafootballguy

16 You mentioned you had been blocked before. Can you explain why the block happened and how do you plan on not having similar issues in the future?

A: Twice. 1) One right after I joined, indef for promotional paid editing; 2) Last year, three-day block for edit warring. Since then (as I have said above) I approach situations patiently and try initiate constructive discussions and if they don't respond I'll just report it to RPPI or ANI depending on the context and patiently wait for an admin to respond..

Optional questions from George Ho

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

A: I'm not entirely sure what it means but based on what I understood: being CIVIL is important and even if criticizing or advising someone's edits/content Civility in discussions should be upheld.

18. At a proposal discussion from WP:VPP, you implied, if not said, that you wanted ways to prevent creation of cricket-related statistical articles before landing an article into an AFD (comment link). What are other ways you have considered besides WP:AFC?

A: This discussion would be the first thing, but I did give it some thought in my mind and my best idea (other may or may not agree with this): Taking away the page creation right at least for mainspace from unregistered and new editors; also moving a page to mainsoace. Any new or unregistered user will have to go through the AfC as the only mean of creating a mainspace page. A reach but maybe limiting mainspace page creations to only Extended Confirmed users would do it right, I believe.

18b. Follow-up: Alternatively, you could go to Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) (WT:NSPORTS) and then raise your issue about especially cricket-related statistical pages. Speaking of NSPORTS, I've yet to see you having participated there. Indeed, I searched your username there and found no results. Why couldn't I see you make a contribution to NSPORTS-related discussions?

A: The opening of the page says sports person or sports league/organization, which is not related to this issue really. Problem is whether a separate page dedicated to their statistical details should be kept or not. Also the discussion at VPP was initiated by another fellow editor, I just weighed in with my opinion. I am also more focused on notability of cricket events/competitions at the moment.

18c. Final follow-up of Q18: After I started a discussion about expanding the scope of NSPORTS to not just sports person or sports league/organization but also other sports-related pages, I was given ideas on what can be done about NSPORTS. Rather than propose changes, I just created notability essays: WP:TEAMSPORTS and WP:INDSPORTS. What are your thoughts on both of these essays I created recently? (Striking out the whole question to avoid possible canvassing.) Dunno what else to ask honestly, so... Here goes:

When you read sports person or sports league/organization, have you assumed that the NSPORTS to will be limited indefinitely to only just those types and will not be possibly changed to expand to other sports-related articles, especially statistical ones?

A: I did already see the thread you started as well as the two essay pages you've created. NSPORTS could be expanded to cover more scope definitely; but the page is already 49.5 kb in size and has nearly 2000 words so, is it really a good idea to make the page even more longer... We could possibly split it into two pages perhaps but, speaking realistically new/unregistered who create pages like these don't usually follow policies or guidelines.. Notability guidelines would only be useful for AfC reviewers and AfD discussions. So, we could possibly expand NSPORTS somewhere down the line but that isn't going to be helpful with the concern I have which is preventing such pages from being created in the first place.

Optional questions from Carrite

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

A: I joined for paid editing but not anymore as I've stated in my opening statement.

20. 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: My current account has had old names (ND.Enterpriser and KCCian24) before global renaming. I also have an active alt account Vestrian24Bio 2 mainly to patrol changes on a few selected pages (such as my GAs, FLs etc.) because my main account has nearly ~6,500 pages in the watchlist and is not easy to keep track of.

Optional questions from Significa liberdade

21.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: I have seen admins and other users being name-called in talk pages. An editor once responded to me with the f-word as well. I just ignore it if it's a single response otherwise I'll just report it to ANI. But, Not loosing my cool over some random editors responses to me.

Optional questions from Bait30

22. Here is a hypothetical related to your desire to 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: If it's 100% fictional thing it would be fine, but the disclaimer should be a bit more detailed than just that. But, even if it's a fictional thing if it directly involves/connects to or references a real-world event or person then such mentions should be removed with the relevant editors acknowledgement and if necessary revdel could be performed.

23. This question relates to your desire to help out with backlogged pages as mentioned in your answer to Q1. Could you explain your decision to relist this RM?

A: As of that point the only comment was that the article would "likely need significant rewriting" and something of that scope I just didn't think would go under RMNOMIN. So, tried to get some participation at least.

Optional question from Spravato

24. If you could change any Wikipedia policy, what would you change

A: if it ain't broken, don't fix it... In my opinion most WP policies are just working fine although the ones related to notability could be polished a bit. I also think that some pages are just too much bloat (not much policy pages though) and should be simplified for easier understanding.

Followup from A412

24b. What might you mean by "polished a bit"? What is an example of a shortcoming you see in current notability policy?

A: "not much policy pages though"; mostly notability policy-adjacent pages essays, advice pages etc. Which are too long and over-explaining and the "in a nutshell" box isn't properly summarizing the pages either..

Optional question from Let'srun

25. What do you think is the most important quality for an admin to have?

A:

Optional question from Left guide

26. In the AfD notes for your first election candidacy, your explanations were classified as showing a "lack of care", a "lack of patience", and "not tending to explain your positions in depth". In the AfD notes below this time around, they are similarly classified as "providing little information" and "not substantial". In light of this, how can the community trust that you will appropriately explain administrative actions as required by WP:ADMINACCT?

A:

Optional question from BlackJack

27. As an administrator, would you be prepared to make "difficult" blocks, by which I mean longstanding editors who have been shown to be disruptive? There is such a case at WP:CRIC, where you are a prominent (and much valued) member.

A: Yes. it would depend on the level of disruptiveness though. For example, SPI blocks or ones involving ARBCOM or even ANI aren't decided by a single admin alone. If a community discussion has decided to impose sanctions, then I'll just carry on with it.