Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MCE89

Co-nomination statement

When MCE89 decides to become good at something, they get real good at it, real fast. Happily for us all, the thing they decided to get good at in December 2024 was "Wikipedia editing". Yes, that's someone in their second full year of editing who just placed third in the Core Contest and presently sits at the top of the WikiCup tournament leaderboard (681 points!). I first came across MCE via their work at Articles for Creation and Articles for Deletion. At AFC, they participated in the June and December backlog drives, completing literally thousands of reviews and taking first place in December by an extremely comfortable margin. Their reviews are helpful and personable, and, rather than declining "close but not quite" drafts, MCE tends to make minor fixes and add citations so they can accept them instead. Their incredible AFD match rate owes to their concise, clear, and thorough !votes, which are extremely helpful for closers.

Nor are they shy about pitching in at some of the encyclopedia's most niche and intimidating backrooms. Sennecaster has already described MCE's copyright work; add sockpuppet investigations to that, too. It isn't just the numbers here that are impressive, though they are impressive: since joining the clerk team as a trainee in March, MCE has already taken some 900 SPI actions. It's the quality and doggedness of the work, including behind-the-scenes on some of our most cursèd cases. (Giraffer named a thread from MCE's first week of traineeship "clerk torture". It remains easily the craziest SPI I have ever worked.) They were also the driving force behind the recent reduction of SPI's inbox to nearly zero. (As I write this, there are only eight actionable reports. The backlog is usually rather closer to eighty.) An interest in some of our most behaviourally knotty cases drew MCE to UPE investigation, and their thorough, clear reports are quick and easy to action for COIVRT volunteers.

If all of that wasn't quite enough, please take pity on the SPI admins: this is what the place looks like when MCE decides to zero out the backlog. Our eyes are bleeding. Save us. -- asilvering (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination, with gratitude to Sennecaster and asilvering. I have never edited for pay and have no other accounts. MCE89 (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Optional question from Jerodlycett

4. Why do you not consider WP:WWUS to be in violation of WP:CANVASS?

A: Thanks for the question. Our canvassing guideline prohibits notifying other editors of ongoing consensus-building discussions with the intent to influence their outcome. The WWUS petition is not seeking to establish community consensus, so the petition isn't a violation of the canvassing guideline. In the event that collective action was called for, I'd strongly oppose any attempt to disrupt or circumvent our normal on-wiki consensus decision-making processes, and would not take any action or use administrative tools contrary to community consensus. The WWUS petition says the community would be able to use normal Wikipedia consensus-building methods to establish the action's terms, and as part of that consensus-building process, I would oppose any collective action that I felt was unwarranted or that amounted to disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point.

Optional question from DragonflySixtyseven

5. When would you leave a personal message for a new user, as opposed to boilerplate?

A: Template messages can be useful, but they have the drawbacks of being less customisable and often coming across as somewhat impersonal. In more complex or nuanced cases where a template message is unlikely to get my message across clearly, I always try to leave a personalised message. I often also pair a template like {{welcoming}} with a non-templated message so that a new user has access to a template filled with relevant links alongside a more personalised message. I try to avoid giving back-to-back templates in all but the most obvious cases; if a new user didn’t change their behaviour in response to the first template, I think it’s generally unlikely that immediately following it up with a second will be effective. The same applies at AfC, where I often give custom comments to submitters , especially if I am declining a draft that has been resubmitted.

Optional question from Red-tailed hawk

6. What do you think the biggest personal challenges you will face as an administrator are going to be?

A: One challenge that I am mindful of is the risk of burning out or over-extending myself as an administrator. I know from the conversations I've had with admins that burnout is a real risk, especially in areas like copyright and SPI that have a relatively low bus factor. It's something I've occasionally felt myself slipping into already as a non-admin, and I'm conscious of the need to avoid placing too much on my own shoulders if given the additional tools and responsibilities that come with adminship. I plan to keep finding time to work on content to help give myself balance, and to shift my focus towards different areas of administrative work if I feel myself at risk of burnout in a particular setting. I'm also lucky enough to have amazing mentors and other trusted admins that I can lean on for support in dealing with this kind of thing.

Optional question from Daniel Case

7. What led you to choose an RfA over standing in an election?

A: The main reason that I chose RfA over standing in an election was that I preferred to have control over the timing of my run, which made it easier to align with off-wiki commitments. I also appreciated the shorter timeframe of RfA and the fact that I'd be able to get feedback from the community more openly.

Optional question from Leijurv

8. Let's imagine you are on an editing strike as per the pledge. While on strike, an editor asks you on your user_talk an WP:ADMINACCT question about an action you took pre-strike. Would you address it, or remain on strike?

A: I would absolutely answer any question I was asked about my administrative actions in that situation. WP:ADMINACCT always comes first, and I take our broader policy on the expectations of administrators seriously. Meeting those expectations would always be my first priority as an admin.

Optional question from Tarlby

9. Here's a less seriöus question for you; what is the origin/meaning of your username?

A: Thank you for the question! Unfortunately there's no particularly interesting meaning behind it.

Optional question from Robert McClenon

10. Do you have any particular thoughts as to how either you, as an administrator and SPI clerk, or the Wikipedia community should deal with undisclosed paid editing?

A: Undisclosed paid editing includes quite a wide range of behaviours, and dealing with each of them can look very different. For instance, handling a spam farm of disposable accounts or a promotional effort by a company's marketing team is quite different to working out whether an established user with NPR/AfC permissions is reviewing articles for pay. The more blatant or unsophisticated cases of UPE can often be handled through warnings and requests for disclosure where appropriate, followed by blocks if necessary. In the more complex cases, some combination of behavioural evidence, technical evidence, and sometimes off-wiki evidence is often needed to identify and prove UPE.

The ways in which I would personally deal with UPE as an administrator and SPI clerk are quite similar to what I do already as a non-admin clerk. I frequently report and request blocks in UPE cases at SPI; one example of a case that I've been particularly involved in is the Azensen SPI, where I identified an initial cluster of accounts based on behavioural evidence and have since regularly reported new sockpuppets. I've also done anti-UPE work behind the scenes, including assisting CUs with behavioural analysis in some complex UPE cases, and making reports to COIVRT based on off-wiki evidence of UPE.

Support

1. First Sennecaster (Chat) 01:13, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
2. Second. As nom. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 01:14, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
3. Third. Helpful, kind, and terrifically skilled, MCE is one of our finest editors. They are an immense asset and have my full confidence, even if I did torture them a little. Giraffer (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
4. I've long looked up to MCE89 as a fellow editor and SPI clerk, and look forward to seeing them with the mop. Best, Staraction (talk · contribs) 01:16, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
5. A skilled and thoughtful contributor, who I'm sure will make a great admin. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 01:17, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
6. With the highest enthusiasm! MCE is incredibly talented, and I know they will be an incredible administrator. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:17, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
7. Great qualifications. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:19, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
8. I am in awe of MCE and everything they manage to do around here: they are a fantastic writer, an absolute powerhouse at SPI, and excel at too many other things to name. I can’t wait to see what they'll get up to with the admin toolkit—support, wholeheartedly! GoldRomean (talk) 01:18, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
9. I know better than to second-guess Sennecaster on copyright, or asilvering on SPI. Thankfully, they've put forward an extremely qualified candidate, so I don't have to! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:22, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
10. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:24, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
11. Rand Freeman _{talk ⬩ in solidarity} 01:24, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
12. Support They seem well trusted and well versed. Adminship is no big deal.--v/r - TP 01:31, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
13. Support! It's very easy to review MCE89's work at GAN or FAC - not only because they do an excellent job on research and writing, but they are also incredibly graceful about receiving critique. Winning combination of skills and temperament. Zzz plant (talk) 01:40, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
14. Support, obviously. RoySmith (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
15. Not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
16. I love SPI people dbeef [talk] 01:56, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
17. Support without hesitation. I have been observing MCE's excellent work in content writing and sock hunting with growing delight. I would gladly have nominated. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
18. Oh man I totally missed on not nominating for this...! Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:26, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
19. I came across MCE89 during my first AfC Backlog Drive in December 2025. Just wow--I support this with my eyes closed. Well trusted. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 02:27, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
20. —Ingenuity (talk) 02:44, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
21. Support without hesitation. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
22. Support Extremely easy decision. EaglesFan37 (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
23. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 03:21, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
24. Mfield (Oi!) 03:31, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
25. Support. No problems here! Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:34, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
26. Support A high quality RfA? In MY admin drought? Why yes please! fanfanboy (block_talk) 03:38, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
27. Support, what Asilvering, Thilio and HouseBlaster have said. I have zero doubt they will be a great admin and an asset of the functionary team. Also support per Thebiguglyalien, History6042. I strongly believe that we should not oppose folks who pledge to show support for the Community Tech team who were on the verge of losing their jobs and the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation staff who need support in forming a union. -- Sohom (talk) 03:38, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
28. Support - through my work at WP:SPI, I have no concerns. PhilKnight (talk) 03:56, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
29. Support. From the nominations, appears to be a very strong candidate with a clue. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:58, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
30. I support this candidate because I have seen their name at the top of the WikiCup leaderboard. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:01, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
31. Obviously. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 04:04, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
32. Support per their great work as an editor and SPI clerk, and per the nominee's pledge to join a united effort in obstructing Wikipedia's functions at the beck and call of a separate organization. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:13, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
33. Support; the astute observations at this SPI would be enough for me on their own, but I'm also impressed by the noms and responses to questions. Graham87 (talk) 04:16, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
34. Support, impressive in many regards. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 04:23, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
35. Support thank you for the help at CCI, at SPI, and in other places NicheSports (talk) 04:28, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
36. Support! Why The Hell Not? --Wassim^talk 04:30, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
37. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 04:47, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
38. Support. Frost 05:10, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
39. Support. Lova Falk (talk) 05:17, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
40. Support. --Minoa (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
41. Support Always thoughtful in discussions! ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 06:04, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
42. Very pleased to see this, already had my eye on them anyway. Solid. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:25, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
43. Support I was surprised when I didn't see MCE89's name at the previous AELECT, as one of the most ready candidates out there. I was even more surprised to learn afterwards that they had only started editing in 2024, showing that our rules of thumb around tenure are once again too strict. I have full confidence they'd be great with the admin tools, as they are level-headed and brilliant at getting backlogs down. This support vote is by no means influenced by their inclusion of wonderful images of birds at Heard Island and McDonald Islands, an article that reached 3rd place in the most competitive version of WP:The Core Contest yet. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:38, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
44. Easy support! In solidarity, nil ^nz 07:37, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
45. Support asilvering thinks the editor is worth supporting for entry into the corps. Working on copyright alone would be worth the !vote but that combined with content creation and so soon after arriving bodes well for the future. Good !vote I'd say. Great article!! scope_creep^Talk 18:47, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
46. Support ...coz why not? ~ Volten001 ^☎ 07:52, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
47. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
48. Support excellent candidate. qcne (talk) 08:42, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
49. Support: +1 for MCE89 is a good candidate. In solidarity, KuyaMoHirowo (talk • contribs) 08:47, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
50. Support. TarnishedPath^talk 09:12, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
51. Support. Yes please! CoconutOctopus talk 10:22, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
52. Support. ~SG5536B 10:29, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
53. Support, no objections and can think of no reason for why they should not have access to the toolset. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:41, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
54. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:54, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
55. Seen their excellent work at SPI. • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 10:57, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
56. Support per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
57. Support has clue. Many. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:02, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
58. Support; I've seen this candidate's work at GAN and DYK and have only a positive impression. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
59. Support, strong candidate. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:00, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
60. Support. Extremely prolific and (from what I've seen) quite reasonable at WP:SPI. Cadddr (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
61. 60th. We need more folks at both copyright and SPI. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
62. Support thank you for volunteering ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
63. Support. Spoiled again with having two excellent candidates at the same time! Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
64. Support No concerns. Intothatdarkness 12:45, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
65. Support – Their SPI work has been excellent, and I have no reason to believe their work with the tools would be any different. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
66. Support. I've consistently been impressed by the candidate's contributions, both to the WikiCup (of which I am a judge) and the copyright field. I wish I can be as diligent as they are with regards to the latter. As for SPI, I'm not too familiar with the candidate's work there, so I'll take the nominators' word for it. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
67. Support No concerns //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 13:13, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
68. Support. Having worked alongside MCE89 on sockpuppet investigations, I have noticed that their behavioral analyses are consistently comprehensive and high-quality. The fact that MCE89 is able to contribute so prolifically in this area, cutting our list of backlogged cases by months, while also being one of the most active copyright investigation clerks and authoring a plethora of good and featured articles is nothing short of incredible. Adminship would allow MCE89 to process many SPI cases independently without needing to flag them for administrative attention, which would further reduce the time it takes to handle the average SPI case. — Newslinger talk 13:25, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
69. Support ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:52, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
70. Support Good work Rolluik (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
71. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
72. Support. Why not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
73. Support Anyone who has bothered A5 enough to get a "shoutout" from him has earned my respect. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
74. Support No reason to think they'll abuse the tools, and makes convincing argument why giving them the tools would be a good thing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
75. Ternera (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
76. 100% support! In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 15:06, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
77. Multiple FAs is a very strong plus; successfully navigating an article through FAC requires being open to feedback and working with others, as well as the ability to write clearly and concisely, which are all qualities I value in an admin. When added to projectspace experience and a track record of playing nicely with others, it's easy to see why the nominators are badgering the candidate to stand. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:03, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
78. Support: strong candidate, good SPI work, will make good use of the tools, and CCI also needs all the help it can get - I have a lot of respect for anybody willing to go through all that trouble. I've only just begun poking around at SPI and have already learned a few things from this editor. ASUKITE 16:16, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
79. Support! toby ^(t)(rw) 16:22, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
80. Support! I first met MCE when they reviewed one of my GANs, and noted their thoroughness and collegial attitude. I tend not to work in the same areas as they do, but I know by the glowing compliments I've heard about their work — particularly from our common relation on the family tree — that they are a talented and hard-working editor in serious need of the tools. —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
81. Support Trustworthy candidate, trustworthy noms. Willing to do the tough stuff. In solidarity, Miniapolis 16:44, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
82. Support Great candidate. Parabolist (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
83. Support AFD !votes grounded in policy and almost always with sources show a candidate clueful on backrooms policy, and their FAs, FLs, and GAs show a candidate clueful on content creation. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:00, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
84. Support. Tazerdadog (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
85. Support. MCE89 is someone I've been aware of for a long time, good work, has a clue and a need. Just been waiting for then to stand, so easy support. KylieTastic (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
86. Support no concerns, abundant relevant experience. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:25, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
87. I have prior experience both with MCE89's work at SPI and on Truganini. They have the aptitude to use the admin tools well. Support. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
88. Support I'm not worried by the concerns raised below, per the reasoning MCE outlines in their answer to Q4. Additionally, the reassurance that admin tools will not be used against community consensus, while it might have gone without saying, is still always good to hear spontaneously. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 18:16, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
89. Support: very solid candidate, knowledgeable, fantastic contributions to the project and makes good decisions. ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 18:40, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
90. Support. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
91. Support: While the oppose votes do have merit, I appreciate that this candidate has shown a broad knowledge of the various P&G's as demonstrated at SPI, along with a good record at AfD, which lends me to support. Let'srun (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
92. Support changing my vote in light of the answer to Question 4. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 20:06, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
93. Support: Without a doubt. In solidarity, Destinyokhiria _{(talk / cont)} 20:29, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
94. Support ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:05, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
95. Support I have seen the candidate around, contributing positively; we also need more admins. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 21:20, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
96. Support. Strong candidate who I would support in any case. In this instance, however, I am also supporting as a means to express my direct and wholehearted disapproval of (and disappointment towards) some of the rationale presented in the oppose section. WindTempos _she/they ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:31, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
97. Per @WindTempos. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:36, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
98. Support, looks good. Excellent contributions more than compensate for young account age. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 22:06, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
99. Support kline / talk / contribs 22:40, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
100. Support And adequate answer was given and my concern eased. Jerod Lycett (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
101. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
102. Support Whpq (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
103. Support. Diligent work at CCI demonstrates both the focus on content appropriate for an admin and a valid need for the mop. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
104. Support: Thanks for volunteering! YuniToumei (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
105. Support the opposes for signing a petition are just ridiculous. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
106. Support – Best of luck and thank you for volunteering! I've already left my distain for the rationale of opposers on the other RfA, so I won't rant here :) — 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:41, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
107. Support Jianhui67 ^T★C 02:45, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
108. Support Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
109. Support. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
110. Support. A no-brainer, really. For those below, my thoughts are here. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 04:23, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
111. Support CCI FTW! The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 06:48, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
112. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:02, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
113. Support broad range of contributions particularly work in copyright investigations & SPI. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:53, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
114. Support I'm not sure that I've ever read such convincing and impressive nomination statements. That's quite the track record, especially given the short tenure. Schwede66 10:16, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
115. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 10:33, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
116. Support: Prolific mainspace contributor with high activity and good communication on their talk page. I always respect the work of those at CCI, and this is no exception. 11WB (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
117. Support Very clearly a net positive. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
118. Support Rzuwig^► 11:19, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
119. Counteracting at 1/3 (or 1/4, I can't recall the math these days) of a poorly thought thru oppose. Many are stretching the definition of "disrupting the encyclopedia" so far that, if we accept this definition, then actively opposing a good candidate to make a political point is much more disruptive than the passive behavior they're objecting to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
120. Support On the basis of the noms and other supports, and bluntly, to counter these nonsense opposes about WWUS. The idea that pledging some sort of volunteer editing stoppage would be a violation of ADMINACCT is wildly absurd. We are volunteers. We edit on our own choice. Becoming admin adds a basic baseline of activity to remain admin, but it does not obligate us to edit or take admin actions. If we're inactive in the capacity, we lose the bit, nothing more. We aren't sanctioned for it. And no one has even once said "I pledge to break Wikipedia policies and use my tools for harm". Everything about the pledge is wrapped in consensus building and policy-allowed actions. If we view "I'm not going to work while I'm unhappy with WMF actions, either individually or as a group" as disruptive in its own right, we've got bigger problems. Suggestions the pledge indicated the candidate would use tools against policy are frankly close to bad faith. -- ferret (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
121. Support: With admin rights, you'll also be able to do more things at SPI (blocking, merging histories of SPIs, etc). --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 13:06, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
122. Support — In solidarity, Penn65 talk 13:33, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
123. Support 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
124. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:38, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
125. Support I'm always impressed when I come across their work! Very thoughtful editor. — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 18:09, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
126. Support: I'm not sure I see the case that assenting to being open to a notional voluntary editing strike is evidence that they will disrupt the project. If they misuse their tools, the community can respond swiftly. They have proven that they are exceptional at handling many backend tasks and, exhibiting a vanishingly rare quality, often explicitly combine that backend work with relevant, high-quality content work. Best of luck with the mop. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
127. Support Cicada1010 (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
128. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 20:22, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
129. Support. I've found them pleasure to deal with, and having read the opposes, am satisfied with the answer to Q4. Clearly an asset to the project who will use the tools effectively. Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
130. Support They're very qualified and hard-working. Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 22:36, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
131. Easy support, great candidate all around. – LuniZunie_(talk) 01:24, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
132. Seems fine, and per Floquenbeam. —Kusma (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
133. Support Seems like a good fit. Jordano⁵³ 06:34, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
134. Support—A highly competent, principled, and productive editor who I trust to use the tools responsibly. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:31, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
135. Support I like their content, they seem to have clue, and as for the right of volunteers to down tools and take a break, how else could a group of volunteers operate whilst still being volunteers? ϢereSpielChequers 09:32, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
136. sapphaline (talk) 09:58, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
137. Support They have consistently demonstrated a good judgement, a perfect knowledge on wikipedia policies and have a good approach to content and community discussions. I have communicated many times to them and demonstrate a professional discussions. Fade258 (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
138. Support Tenshi! (Talk page) 14:09, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
139. Support. The assumptions that pledging to strike in support of Wiki Workers United would result in disruption to Wikipedia are unfounded at best - WP:WWUS does not explicitly call for allowing in vandalism/spam/other blatant violations of Wikipedia policy. I believe that editors can have their own opinions regarding the strike, and if that means disagreeing with it, that's fine - but pledging to strike if needed is not an explicit indication of incapacity to interpret policy or carry out administrative actions. ~delta _{{talk • cont • 🇰🇷 • 🎢}} 14:40, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
140. 📎 JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 17:24, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
141. Support. This user does not vandalize pages. Thomasfan1916^{[built buses?]} 21:08, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
142. Initially for reasons similar to Floquenbeam, but also on the merits of this candidacy: the candidate has significant experience and community trust, and would be effective and useful as an administrator. Arcticocean ■ 21:42, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
143. Support JuniperChill (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
144. Support Well-rounded candidate with strong content contributions as well as involvement with SPI. Will be an asset to the project with the tools. Spencer^T•C 03:48, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
145. Support ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:57, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
146. Support per candidate's answer to my question Leijurv (talk) 11:38, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
147. Support. Good candidate. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 12:00, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
148. Support despite TBUA's concern which I sympathize with, I believe MCE has sufficiently demonstrated they would be a net benefit with the toolsCzarking0 (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
149. Support Predominantly for your work in SPI. For some reason, I confused you with MER-C and thought you were an admin already Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
150. Support: Solid candidate. I am convinced by their record, the nomination, and question responses. --AntiDionysius (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
151. Support The4lines |||| (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
152. Support ScalarFactor (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
153. Support Candidate seems like a diligent and thoughful editor who I would trust to make appropriate decisions as an administrator Gnisacc (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
154. Support - nothing to suggest that the candidate would abuse the tools. Guettarda (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
155. Support: Forget MCE89 having a "need for the tools"; after looking at asilvering's photo, I think SPI needs the candidate to have the tools! I don't have much experience in SPI or CCI, but editors that do have given their support, and I trust their judgement. I was never concerned by the opposes, which do not give me good reason to think they would abuse the mop. I am even less worried after their answer to question 8. Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
156. Support does good work at SPI and elsewhere 1brianm7 (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
157. Support. Strong combination of content work and behind-the-scenes cleanup, and comes well-recommended. For what it's worth, I'm skeptical about the proposed "strike", but I would never treat that as a reason to oppose someone's RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
158. Whonting (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
159. I have the same opinion about this RFA as I do Staraction's, and I look forward to this user becoming an admin. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
160. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:06, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
161. Support Satisfactory answer to my question (which is really for research purposes only), not directly familiar with them but a lot of people I trust here vouching for them. As for the strike thing see my support of Staraction. Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
162. Support – I have not had too many interactions with MCE, but those that I have had do give me confidence that the resume accurately reflects on their competence, and I believe that they will do just fine as an admin. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 06:34, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
163. Support – seems to be a good candidate, and their support for WWU is no reason to oppose. --Yodin^T 10:27, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
164. No concerns from me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
165. No obvious red flags for me Giulio 13:13, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
166. Support – Their work at CopyPatrol has been excellent, and having use of the tools will facilitate that work.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
167. Oppose votes are totally unconvincing. --JBL (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
168. Support No major concerns for me, unconvinced by the opposes. LightlySeared (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
169. Support on their record. BD2412 T 20:20, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
170. Support No concerns for me. A good content creator. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
171. Support A diligent SPI clerk who could make good use of the tools. Obvious support. Cabayi (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
172. Support I am delighted to turn up today and find two(!) RfAs running (is it purely coincidence that they are both scheduled to end at the same moment?). Unfortunately i have been close to inactive for a few months for assorted reasons, so no interaction with the candidate, but i definitely support on the basis of the nomination statements, the nominators themselves, both of whom i respect, and the candidate's answers to the questions. Nothing in the opposes is convincing to me, so let's get another admin badge printed ~ Lindsay^Hello 10:38, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
173. Support – Ammarpad (talk) 11:36, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
174. Support – no concerns--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 12:37, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
175. Support. Does good works in areas where the admin set of tools is useful.—Alalch E. 16:31, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
176. Support - We need more admins, including this one. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
177. Support, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
178. Support. We need more admins that appreciate content and I have seen this editor around demonstrating that.--Commander Keane (talk) 06:37, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
179. Support – DreamRimmer ■ 13:17, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
180. Support! jlwoodwa (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
181. Support EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:33, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
182. Okay, yes. DS (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per the nominee's pledge to join a united effort in obstructing Wikipedia's functions at the beck and call of a separate organization. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

   Note that I've replied at Staraction's RfA, where TBUA left an identical !vote. —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

2. Oppose per User:Thebiguglyalien. History6042 😊 (Contact me) 03:36, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

   Oppose for the same reasons as the above.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Moving to neutral.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

   Oppose, reluctantly, but I can't support this without clarification as to if or how their pledge might obligate them to use the admin tools at the direction of an seperate organization.^{struck per Ahecht, -- LWG talk (VOPOV) 20:04, 13 July 2026 (UTC)} Would heartily support given a satisfactory answer to this concern. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 15:25, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

   @LWG The candidate has now responded to Question 4. --Ahecht (TALK
   PAGE) 17:03, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

3. Oppose only 1.5 years of editing experience I would prefer to see more time. Also going on strike is pretty bad too. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:26, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

   Only? You know many of our admins have been registered for less than a year and 6 months when they became it? See for example Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joyous! and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zzuuzz and many others. --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 13:23, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

   Those are dated from 2004 and 2006... Things have progressed pretty significantly since then. I think you would struggle to find an example from after 2015. 11WB (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

   We have had multiple administrators pass RFA or EFA recently with approximately 18 months of activity. @CoconutOctopus and ScottishFinnishRadish: come to mind. MCE is approaching 20 months. It is likely that more candidates could pass with similar periods of active editing, but for a degree of conservativeness among nominators, myself included. If your personal threshold is higher than that, that is an opinion you are entitled to, but it is incorrect to say that the standard is uniformly higher. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

   I also nominated CoconutOctopus. She ran in July 2025 with significantly less than 18 months of unbroken experience, though a rather older account. Here is her xtools. You will notice, in the two years preceding her EFA, a six-month not-quite-hiatus, and only 9 months over 100 edits/month. At that time, she had 14 total months of over 100 edits/month in her entire editing career. She is a capable administrator and we are lucky to have her.

   MCE89, by contrast, has 18 months of activity, zero of which are under 100 edits. I share Vanamonde93's approach here and would not nominate someone with an account age under 18 months. I can also add that many admins have wondered why MCE did not run earlier. Some were surprised when I told them he'd been here less than two years. Others told me I was being unnecessarily conservative and ought to push him to run sooner. The relative dearth of candidates running earlier than 18 months owes more to the approach taken by recently prolific nominators, as Vanamonde suggests, than it does to whether candidates are actually "ready" earlier. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

4. Kind of agree with the other opposers here mentioning the "unionizing" page signature ... someone who is committed to basically go on strike when Wikipedia has issues really should not be in a position of leadership. Steel1943 (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Thebiguglyalien. Editors who pledge to disrupt the encyclopaedia to make a point (regardless of the merits or otherwise of that point) are not fit to be administrators. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

   ...not fit to be administrators is incredibly strong wording. I assume you'll be opening 66 recall petitions for all the admins who are no longer fit? In solidarity, nil ^nz 11:55, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

   Could all of you please stop the snappy replies to Oppose/Neutral voters?… if this were at any other forum, it’d be called bludgeoning.

   People are allowed to disagree with you. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

   Disagreeing is one thing; calling into question the fitness of two prospective – and sixty-six current –administrators is another. Anyone who makes such a broad statement should expect to be challenged on it. In solidarity, nil ^nz 23:53, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

   No. The entire point of RfA is to determine if someone is fit to be an administrator. By your logic every oppose should be challenged, which isn’t ideal. If someone wants a vote without any public opposition, we have admin elections where every opposer doesn’t have to justify it. In RfA, our convention is that opposes are expected to publicly justify it. That leads to people using direct language. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

   Yes, the point of an RFA is to determine whether or not somebody is fit o be an admin; not to make grandiose and WP:POINTY statements about a large percentage of our active admin corpand implicitly calling for their desysopping because they disagree with you on a meta issue; I think NewYorkBrad summed it up the best on the talk page of Staraction's RFA, and I hope @Thryduulf will read his post there. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 22:57, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

   Thats an incredibly uncharitable take on a controversial topic where people of good will can disagree. I supported because I don’t consider it disqualifying, but I also understand Thryduulf’s stance, and I don’t fault him for it. He hasn’t convinced me it’s the right one to take, but the opposition to people opposing on reasonable grounds in completely civil and direct speech is more inappropriate than anything Thryduulf said. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

   @Nil NZ yes I do consider the sixty six people who have pledged to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point unfit to continue being administrators. If I thought that starting a recall petition would result in anything other than a disruption of Wikipedia to make a point that people pledging to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point should be allowed to do then I would. However, as I do not wish to disrupt Wikipedia (to make a point or otherwise) I shall refrain from doing do. Thryduulf (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

   Speaking as a fellow signatory of the WWU petition, I don't consider engaging in an editorial strike to be disruptive, strictly speaking. If it were a coordinated attempt to undermine Wikipedia or any other WMF-owned website, that would be different. To me, a strike is simply refusing to contribute to anything other than matters relating to the unionization of WMF employees. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:30, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

   An individual simply no longer volunteering is not disruptive. However, the pledge does not limit the action to that and multiple editors have made it explicit that a strike would involve actions that would disrupt the project. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

   The suggestion that direct actions to disrupt Wikipedia (not counting a simple cessation of contributions) would arise from the petition is a fringe view among signatories. The vast majority (myself included) would do no such thing. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

   Agreed. The maximum proposed action just now is an editorial strike, and signing the petition is not a suicide pact. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 01:54, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

6. per TBUA ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 17:29, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Neutral

# Neutral For now. Waiting to receive an answer on how off-wiki groups calling for action on-wiki would not be a violation of WP:CANVASS. Jerod Lycett (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jerodlycett The candidate has now responded to Question 4. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:03, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

1. Neutral – while I recognise MCE’s contributions to Wikipedia (including helpful work and reviews on some of my own articles) I share @Thebiguglyalien’s concerns. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 12:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
2. Neutral I lean support, but will be here for now.SamuelNelsonGISP (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
3. Neutral from oppose, given their answer to #4, I will strike my oppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
4. Neutral Whilst I recognise MCE has done a lot of very useful contributions to wikipedia I share the concerns of other neutral and oppose voters about their pledge to disrupt Wikipedia based on the decision of a different organistion and therefore cannot support their candicacy. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 16:06, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

General comments

@Jerodlycett, I suggest reading the second sentence of Wikipedia:Canvassing: "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior" (emphasis added). Whether the WMF recognizes a staff union is neither an on-wiki discussion nor a part of the "normal consensus decision-making process". voorts (talk/contributions) 03:45, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

You are correct that the WMF recognizing a staff union or not is not on-wiki. However, there is a pledge that the admin hopeful has signed that should the potential union decide to make the call they would take on-wiki actions specifically to disrupt the normal consensus decision-making process. That is my specific concern here. If they chose to stop performing editing and sysop activities at the potential union's request I would not care. It's the call to directly influence consensus as a group that concerns me. Jerod Lycett (talk) 03:55, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

The pledge says nothing of the sort. It says that we (including myself as a signatory) "affirm our willingness to engage in collective action if called upon by WWU, up to and including staging an editorial strike", and that if the Union calls for such "collective action", then we would "use normal Wikipedia consensus-building methods to establish the action's terms and, if desired, to establish further demands of our own in addition to WWU's demands" (emphasis added). voorts (talk/contributions) 03:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Exactly this. The attempts to portray the pledge/petition as being some sort of eternally-binding blood pact are, in my view, deeply misleading (at best). Full disclosure-I also signed it. Intothatdarkness 12:50, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Responding to @Voorts: I've little knowledge of what this is. I assume this is the "in solidarity" tag I've seen used in signatures across the site? The way you described this, "staging an editorial strike" and "establish further demands" sounds disruptive and anti-fourth pillar. I heard in passing about a restructure of WMF staff, with this being the result of that? Not sure why that can be used as a reason to oppose an RfA in all honesty, even if it does all sound anti-collegial in practice. 11WB (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Based on the current status of the petition, attempts to turn this into an RFA litmus test are more likely to end up emboldening a future wave of "Oppose - has not indicated their willingness to stand in solidarity with Wikipedia software developers" should anyone who hasn't signed the petition stand for adminship. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:03, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

That would be wrong too. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:25, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Aye, I mostly intended to point out that the opposes seem to be teeing up an ill-considered fight. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:20, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Voorts, my understanding has been that the WMF explicitly considers hiring decisions to be exempt from community consensus and review in line with WP:CONEXEMPT, and so "canvassing" isn't really a relevant guideline to consider in this context. Sohom (talk) 03:58, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention that the wording of my initial Oppose vote here may have hurt feelings, caused admins who signed WP:SOLIDARITY to feel untrusted, or caused people to suspect me of ulterior motives. I have written an essay to clarify my views on the matter, and I hope everyone here, including the candidate, will understand that I respect them and appreciate their work for the wiki, and that my actions are solely motivated by a desire to improve the wiki. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 15:03, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.