Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shushugah

Shushugah

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (13/14/1); Scheduled to end 18:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Nomination

Shushugah (talk · contribs) – Inspired by Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DatGuy, I am boldly self-nominating myself, because fundamentally there is a shortage of admins. I intent to focus in areas I am primarily interested in, which like 99.99% of Wikipedia do not require any form of adminship or even registered accounts, namely content creation/collaboration in WP:LABOR, Yiddish periodicals and WP:TEAHOUSE.

I have sporadically edited as an IP address since 2010, and since 2018 edited under this account. I have never edited with any other accounts.

Over the past 4 years, my levels of activity have varied. As we enter our 3rd year of the pandemic, prioritizing consistent activity/mental health is critical. I hope by slowly easing in, I can make it both easier for other admins and reliably sustain my own contributions.

My identity is public (Twitter account is same as my user account). I am a software developer in Berlin and in the context of Wikipedia, my main 'technical' contributions consisted of light weight template/script improvements, however in my opinion, my more meaningful technical contributions have been improving documentation and asking/answering questions in WP:VPT. In a way, the 'slow'/collaborative mode of wiki editing is a fresh break from my professional work; however if useful, I'd be willing to extend my hand in more technical areas.

If there was a pathway for de-bundled/temporary adminship, I think many more people would be willing/able to contribute, however there isn't one yet. I have a clean block-log, despite working in many contentious areas of Wikipedia. It's worth noting here, I'd recuse myself from any administrative areas in WP:PIA and American Politics broadly construed due to my past/current involvement. I am not here for the WP:DRAMA and for that reason have stayed away from WP:ANI. In two cases, I've been due to my WP:COI and or interest/proximity to a topic, dragged, namely Alexa O'Brien (see talk page disclosure) and because of my creation of Apple worker organizations which was heavily edited by User:SquareInARoundHole who was blocked for both sock puppeting and gross undisclosed WP:COI on BLP subjects. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

In the very concrete near future (next 3 months) I imagine being able to assist at WP:TH with responding to WP:REFUND requests, non-controversial technical moves and most importantly, continue contributing to Wikipedia as a content contributor. Those are modest but genuinely what I wish/intend to do. Thank you for taking the time to read and consider my proposal. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?

A: The churn rate of admins is growing, which in turn only increases the pressure on new admins. Particularly, the scrutiny candidates face is quite stressful, and I'd like to change that by example. With fewer than 10k edits, and a self nomination, with a light need for the tools, I intend to live the ethos "no big deal".

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

A: My cordial manner at WP:TEAHOUSE has led to other contributors becoming Tea hosts themselves e.g. User:Blaze Wolf. Content wise, I am most proud of Volkswagen worker organization, an article I intend to carry through WP:GA status.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: The most memorable/heated conflict for me was in 2018 while editing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. I made a number of bold edits, and was on verge of edit warr'ing. What saved me, was WP:COOLing off, and trusting that whatever content dispute we had, could be resolved later. I found User:Thewolfchild's comments on my talk page quite unwelcoming and I wanted to respond, but cooled off and stayed focused on content. In the end I saw the community intervened.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Optional question from Barkeep49

4 & 5. Listen I would love for RfA to become less stressful and have attempted to run a variety of candidates who push at conventional wisdom in some sort of way in an effort to demonstrate that a wide range of candidates can be successful. So I appreciate your attempt to be the change you want to see. However, for me the whole point of RfA is to see if I can trust the admin. That is the whole ballgame. Your statement and answers to the standard 3 questions don't give me any real idea as to what you will do as an administrator if this is successful. So what would you do as an administrator (vs what you are doing as a candidate)? And what evidence can you give me that you understand English Wikipedia's norms such that your activity as an administrator won't create needless drama/distraction for the community? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

A: @Barkeep49 I empathize here, that a lower edit count gives other editors fewer material to scrutinize. Even users with higher edit count (and seemingly clean block logs) can mislead well intentioned voted in RfA e.g WP:Requests for adminship/Eostrix.

What I do provide with my sparse edit count, is a near 100% edit summary demonstrating my keenness to collaborate with other editors and a track record of friendly candor and collaboration in various WikiProjects, talk pages and the newbie friendly spaces like TH.

My clean block-log despite frequent editing in areas under arbitration enforcement, regular interactions with new users at WP:TH and being the recipient of the WP:PRECIOUS award prove I have good temperament, despite many opportunities for conflict/heated exchanges. I graciously accept feedback (see my OCRP and also recognize when I am in the minority opinion. For example I have argued unsuccessfully for the inherent notability of all diplomatic missions, still I was able to improve a number of the notable diplomatic missions, and find naming conventions for them in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Archive 6.

Furthermore, ironically in this case, a more tense RfA process here might give me an opportunity to prove my calm demeanor, focus on policy (and self awareness of my limitations). I will not change my answer regarding the 'need' for tools. My need/usage is marginal at the moment, and if the community thinks that is a deal breaker, so be it. I hold no grudge for a reasonable take. I would much rather however, get my feet wet/explore new areas here, than rush into anything. I do not resent any vote no's, due to low edit count/limited experience. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from Red-tailed hawk

6. To what extent do you believe that editors who broadly support the historical actions of repressive government security agencies, such as the Stasi, should be welcome to edit Wikipedia?

A: Red-tailed hawk There are two dimensions to this question, the mindset/conduct of a user, and specifically how should the encyclopedic topic of Stasi be summarized?

Ideally the personal views of any editor is difficult to discern solely from their edit contribution, because the edits themselves are grounded in policy, and an accurate/neutral summary of secondary sources which enables them to achieve consensus and give appropriate due weight to various potentially contradicting/differing sources, without revealing which sources are personally persuasive/reflective of the user's views.

The enwp community has enacted a number of policies to foster this. Whether pro/anti, an accounted named User:StasiHistory is likely violating WP:SPA, WP:ADVOCACY and they probably do not understand the core value of Wikipedia, which is consensus building.

Outside the enwp, the Wikimedia foundation has taken a number of [political] policy positions around freedom of expression, a proposed meta:Universal Code of Conduct which all inadvertently would lead the Wikimedia movement to run afoul in a modern day GDR.

The perception of a user's contributions/neutrality is however not enough. If a user has any conflict of interest, they're strongly encouraged to declare it (mandatory if PAID), and refrain from mainspace edits, even if they think they can neutrally edit a topic.

My personal opinion of the Stasi regime (as an editor living in Berlin too) should be irrelevant. What's relevant is the quality of secondary/reliable sourcing. A consequence of this is what is considered WP:FRINGE can shift. This is also why for medical topics, even more stringent sourcing requirements exist: WP:MEDRS.

A pluricentric (multiple nationalities/contexts) edition of Wikipedia, like enwp and dewp likely incorporate contradicting sourcing, to enrich a user's encyclopedic understanding of a topic. Something Balkan/Croatian Wikipedia, Indonesian Wikipedia/Malay Wikipedia suffer from. Read the interesting conclusions in meta:Croatian Wikipedia Disinformation Assessment-2021. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

6.1: Follow-up question from Red-tailed hawk

Suppose that someone publicly identifies as a supporter of the actions of the Stasi on their User page and that they have a userbox that states This user supports the actions of the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit in its anti-fascist struggle against the internal enemies of the Deutsche Demokratische Republik. If you were to encounter this in the wild as an administrator, what would be your next steps and why?

A Short answer is probably nothing. The more revealing answer would be for me to explain why. If there was a content violation, I'd open an WP:MfD, the way someone did for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman back in 2009, (similar discussions have surfaced last year as well). Wikipedia in general is consensus driven, not punitive. I do not view editing and specifically adminship as carrying a hammer in search of a nail (nor sickle).

WP:USERPAGES emphasizes that userpages should serve purpose of increasing collaboration around a topic, which a userbox from WP:SOCIALISM would accomplish, a self-aggrandizing userbox arguably fits that collaborative spirit less so. That said, if they haven't made edits in years...who cares what's on their user page? And if they have made recent edits, I might be curious enough to look through them (while avoiding WP:HOUNDing. Given that I expect them to have certain political notions, I might be paying special attention to any kind of WP:POV editing they're making in related areas around communism and or German history. More pragmatically, I think politically polemical userboxes might make it easier to keep track of users who do not understand Wikipedia's purpose, and there are likely more specific conduct related issued to address, before nagging over borderline/pov pushing userboxes. Specific admin considerations, include the optics/appearance of being WP:INVOLVED with a specific user or topic, so I'd generally recuse myself from political matters as an admin anyways, even if there was clear action to take. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from VersaceSpace

7. What do you have to say to editors who may oppose this RfA due to your low edit count in comparison to other candidates? —VersaceSpace 🌃 20:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

A: VersaceSpace I should have in retrospect addressed low edit-count more proactively, so thank you for the chance. I do not blame anyone who prefers/requires higher edit count in order to make an informed choice. I do think WP:EDITCOUNT is problematic, as it does not transparently reveal time-consuming, but low-edit volume activity like reference verification, research and off-wiki prepared drafts, whereas anti-vandal patrolling can acquire more edits more quickly. Both are immensely valuable to enwp to be clear.

While I think there is a confirmation bias to look solely at how things were done in the past, the summary of Wikipedia:RFA study demonstrates two things. One is that the onboarding of new admins has significantly slowed down, while the need has not necessary decreased. But, more crucially for my RfA here specifically, there's precedence for other successful candidates with less than 10,000 edit counts requesting the mop. Examples include Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ceradon (worth noting they got desysopped after failed disclosure of alternates and failed a second RfA Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ceradon 2). I personally resonated/found lot of similarity with Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Samwalton9. In the Comments section of this RfA, User:Ritchie333 points out Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GoldenRing. So the situation we have today, is both seemingly more stringent requirements, but also declining numbers. There are other solutions besides relaxing the RfA process, so I respect people who decline my RfA for this reason. My answer to questions 4/5 further contextualize, why despite even low edit count, I would be at worse, a safe/non distracting non-jerk with a modicum of a clue. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from Kj cheetham

8. A common question at RfA, what are your thoughts on being open to recall?

A: Personally, I wouldn't want to be holding the mop, let alone editing where I've lost the trust of the community broadly speaking. To be precise regarding the non-binding recall process, I think it's silly. The decent admin/editors will voluntarily recall, while the power hoarders will go back on their commitment to abide by an unenforceable recall. The solution is to either make some standard recall process that admins can voluntarily bind themselves by, or implement time-limited terms so admins can re-opt in, and lastly continue improving the de-sysop process. I personally dislike using individual RfA as a forum to debate these questions as a policy matter, but I do think the question helps reveal the frame of mind of the prospective candidate, so thank you for that opportunity at least.

Optional question from Kj cheetham

9. Which areas have the most significant admin backlogs (i.e. require the admin toolset specifically) which you feel you'd be able to contribute to?

A:

Optional question from VickKiang

10. I am suprised by your fairly light AfD records and the lack of a WP:CSD log. I understand that this is a very common (and easy) question, but should you be a sysop, you said that you would be willing to participate in WP:REFUND, which is linked with CSDs and PRODs. I'd like to ask in what cases would you accept requests to speedy delete pages under G11, A7, and U5; and could you please explain their differences? Many thanks for this RfA! VickKiang (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

A: VickKiang I would err on making more CSD/Prod requests as an editor first to familiarize myself with what kind of problematic/prominent content there is and also understand the experience as a user.

• G11 are articles tagged as unambiguous advertisements. If an article on face of it appears to be spam, I'd first check if there's an older version that is acceptable, even a one line-stub. The spammy history may have to be revdeled. If this is an article that's been deleted several times before under same/similar names, I may apply a salt to prevent automatic creation. If genuinely spammy, I almost never would draftify, nor grant a refund.
• Something like an A7 is only applicable to 7 topics mentioned. People, bands, corporations, groups, events, websites and animals. Since the topics might be notable, I would do a WP:BEFORE check, and also see if more relevant scope applies, for example all specious are inherently notable, specific types of people like WP:NACADEMIC have exceptions from the standard GNG. I would seek any alternative to speedily deleting under A7, opting instead for draftification, or even AfD to gather more eyes, admin or not.
• As the prefix U implies, it is related to misuse of User space, while the above scenarios are presumably in mainspace/drafts intended for mainspace. In general, but especially as admins we should be careful not to bite the newbies. In this scenario, say on their User page below their short self-intro, they enclosed a stub/draft of content. Depending how complex/important the edit history is, I would ping their talk page to move the content to a user subpage/draft space or directly move it myself and ping them. Deletion is only a last/necessary resort, so alternate options like WP:BLANKing should be looked into, so that history is preserved if necessary, and older edits aren't lost.

• G11 is the most malicious/willful misunderstanding of Wikipedia, while the latter two are likely mistakes productive/new editors might make. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Follow-up question from Cryptic

10.1. You list several reasons why you wouldn't accept requests to speedy delete pages under criterion U5. In what cases would you accept such a request? —Cryptic 00:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

A: MediaWiki is awesome software for wide variety of purposes, however Wikipedia, specifically enwp has very specific purposes. So obvious stuff like people using Wikipedia as their online photo album storage (even if freely licensed, that's not what enwp is for). I'll avoid political questions like whether c:Main is a free-hosting solution for ANY freely licensed images/videos. I sometimes observe younger people treating Wikipedia talk pages as social media/gaming platform (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a social networking site, which it is not. In all of those situations, would be unambiguous U5. Of course, if a user page contain a smattering of non-encyclopedic raccoon related content (Sign Petition to Feed Them Trash Now!) here/there, I'd be too WP:INVOLVED (and distracted) to delete them, but an admin with more common-sense would be right to delete them. I'd probably also suggest them Fandom, or MediaWiki hosting services to explore their non-encyclopedic hobbies. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from Nosebagbear

11.A number of editors have specifically raised the issue of you accepting GA noms this year and then disappearing, leaving them all requiring someone else to take them on. You can no doubt see why this might cause concerns with admin actions in the offing. What would you say with regard to this?

A: Nosebagbear Most of the opposes are friendly opposes along the lines of "not yet", however this is one of the cases where my judgment, specifically on time-management and accountable availability is sincerely taken up to task. I completed approximately 30 Good Article Reviews in January 2022 period, the vast majority successfully, with 4 remaining dormant (Talk:OpenVMS/GA1, Talk:Adam Naruszewicz/GA1, Talk:Hasan ibn Ali/GA1, and Talk:Guido Imbens/GA1) throughout February-March. During the January period, I picked up some complex GA reviews, for example taking over the abandoned Talk:Palestinian enclaves/GA2 review over a 3 week period.  ::In retrospect, I should have scoped my availability, either by completing fewer GARs, or failing them sooner after the customary period of one or even two weeks. For example Talk:OpenVMS/GA1 was addressed 1 month later after my initial review. When I was back on Wikipedia in April, the first thing I did was thank User:BlueMoonset and User:Jenhawk777 who cleaned up after my mess, and I completed any remaining reviews I could, namely Talk:Adam Naruszewicz/GA1. During the June 2022 GA backlog, I committed and completed a much more humble 5 GARs, in response to my over commitment in Jan/February. This is something I would keep in mind for any sysop activity, which is again why I am making lowkey commitments on what I'd do if entrusted with the mop. I would be extremely cautious of any activity that might require speedy responses from users, and if I do partake in such activity, I'd commit to keeping my talk page updated with a {{Busy}} tag when appropriate, as well as alternate contact info. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• Links for Shushugah: Shushugah (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Shushugah can be found here.

---

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

Support

1. Looks like a good candidate, why not? Rlink2 (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
2. no immediate red flags visible, so why not? Adminship is not a big deal anyways. Adminship has a learning curve, and I believe Shushugah would learn the ropes along the way in the area they get involved in. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
3. Some users might oppose due to a low edit count, but again, WP:NOBIGDEAL applies. Clearly a very productive and helpful user. —VersaceSpace 🌃 20:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
4. Worth a shot Volten001 ^☎ 20:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
5. Calm temperament, which is essential. His articles are nice, tight, and on essential subjects. His low edit count doesn't bother me a bit because they are quality edits.Central and Adams (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
6. Has clue, not a jerk, no big deal — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 20:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
7. Support Strongly support this nomination. Their articles are well done and in my view on important topics. In my experiences with Shushugah they have shown a good positive attitude and would make a great admin. A good example of this was when I nominated one of their articles for deletion and they handled it professionally and politely. Afterwards I wrote them a thank you note on their talk page.

   "I really appreciate the way you handled the Microsoft and Unions article discussion. You handled everything in a professional and kind way and this meant a lot to me as a new page reviewer. For some reason I just didn't think to rename the article which in hindsight is pretty silly of me. You've done a lot of impressive work and I hope to I run across more of your articles in the future."

   Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 21:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
8. Support per TNT above. and Dennis Brown in general comments.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

   DeepfriedLadyFinger and not me? :-( —usernamekiran (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

   and usernamekiran, of course. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

   What, we are syaing NBD again? How quaint. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

   all right. all of the supporters! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

   hehehe —usernamekiran (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

9. Support—I know it's kind of an antiquated viewpoint to hold onto in this day and age, but I still believe that adminship is no big deal. Kurtis ^(talk) 22:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
10. Support: good grief, what the hell is the point in establishing substantive community consensus in 2021 that "No need for the tools" is a poor reason to oppose and then a 61-person strong unanimous decision to change Q1 in accordance with this if when it comes to one of the few RfAs of 2022, suddenly everyone reveals that they actually do believe it's a good reason to oppose?
    The candidate's edit count and tenure is plenty. When someone can show me an actual edit they have made (you've got several thousand to choose from) that indicates that they are generally untrustworthy in one of the following areas, ping me and I'll reconsider: common sense; good temperament; reading policy and entering new areas with caution until they have mastered the basics.
    Thank you for standing, Shushugah. — Bilorv (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
11. Support Thank you for choosing to be a candidate. Severestorm28 22:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
12. Support - Fully qualified candidate with the right demeanor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
13. Support per Bilorv. To everyone who wrote lots of words to state that no need for the tools is a poor reason to oppose, this is your moment to put your money where your mouth is. I trust Shushugah to be accountable for his actions. In any event, Arbcom has shown itself to be more than capable to remove the tools for ADMINACCT issues. HouseBlaster^talk 23:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose – I appreciate your willingness to help out, but don't feel that you're ready for adminship at this time. Your statement seems to suggest you don't have much of a use case for the tools now but that in 3 or so months you would like to process requests at RFU and RM/TR, however with 6 and 9 edits to those pages respectively, and no CSD log (relevant to the former), I don't feel as if you have the necessary experience to participate administratively in those areas in the near future. Your activity levels are also significantly below what I would expect of someone running for adminship, with your last 50 edits going back to late June. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 20:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

   Strike: will leave this up to the other Wikipedia scrutinizers. Do not feel he has the experience required for an admin yet. (not experienced with RfA so unsure if it's necessary to give a detailed explanation so I won't for now) — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 20:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

   "not experienced with RfA" You said it. You really should read Wikipedia:Advice for RfA voters and User:Kudpung/RfA criteria. I'm sorry to have to say that, while I'm sure this was said in good faith, what you've written is functionally equivalent to trolling. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

   Your comment strikes me as a bit below standard. Why not just refer them to the linked articles without the comments or use language like "if you have questions about how to respond in RFAs, see X"? A veiled accusation of trolling isn't especially useful here. Intothatdarkness 20:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

   Will strike my oppose since I don't think I was fully aware of the amount of scrutiny at RfAs, and it's feeling a bit too stressful for me (why I generally stay away from them in the first place). But if anyone was curious, my reasons for opposing was not the edit count, but the following: lack of quality article improvement (no GAs/FAs and a failed GA), Wikipedia is all about creating content, all the other processes are just facilitations for those, so I don't like seeing the essentials not really there; a quarter of their mainspace pages are deleted; but the main one is lack of experience in processes I feel a to-be admin should have used to gain experience gauging consensus in, e.g. AfD (good track record but not a whole of participation). — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 21:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

   @PerfectSoundWhatever for what it's worth, the deletions are intentional, because they're technical moves (switching a current title to an existing redirect), something I cannot do on my own, but an admin would have to do for me after making a request at WP:RMT, one of my explicitly stated uses for the mop, helping out with non-controversial technical moves ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

    Bureaucrat note: to appease the counting modules this withdrawn entry was slightly refactored, and moved to the second comment. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

   @Xaosflux could these comments be moved to General Comments - they're really confusing in their current position Nosebagbear (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

   @PerfectSoundWhatever: ok with you? (There is a bit of a bug when the first oppose is striken) — xaosflux ^Talk 23:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

2. Oppose I might yet change my mind, but it's not clear to me what they want the admin toolset for, and it seems like they need to build up some other experience more first. For instance they mention wanting to help with non-controversial technical moves but haven't even applied for the page movers perm. Overall the level of activity is lower than I'd expect for an admin. Assisting at TH and content creation aren't a reason for being an admin. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
3. Oppose I appreciate the nominee's work but largely agree with what Giraffer writes. I also believe that in most cases would-be admins ought to have added Good or Featured content to the encyclopaedia. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
4. Oppose Thank you for stepping up, I wish more people would. That being said, I cannot support this candidacy. I am quite concerned about your varying levels of activity. In February and March of this year, you made a total of 9 edits. Just last month, you only had 12! I also recall you took upon a number of GA reviews in January, and then abruptly disappeared, leaving them all requiring a second reviewer. I am aware of WP:VOLUNTEER, but I find this kind of behavior inconsistent with what I'd expect from an admin. The primary article you mention in your nomination statement, Volkswagen worker organizations, failed its first GAN because you disappeared. Try again after having six months of consistent activity and I'd be open to supporting. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
5. Oppose - I do not see a need for the tools or a convincing reason to give it to them. If the candidate has done great work without the mop I suggest they continue doing so. An WP:ORFA thread would've been benefitial here as this self-nomination seems rushed. I will follow the thread with great interest and am open to being convinced to change my vote. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 22:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
6. Oppose Per Giraffer and Trainsandotherthings. There's little experience or effort to learn the areas they say they would like to work as admins, and activity levels are low. I especially don't like leaving the GA reviews hanging. ADMINACCT requires admins to respond to questions about their actions, and it can be demonstrated in last roughly 6-8 months that this editor involves themselves in community processes and then disappears. -- ferret (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
7. No real answer has been provided to Barkeep49's question So what would you do as an administrator (vs what you are doing as a candidate)? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
8. Oppose I'm sorry to do this, but I think you've shot yourself in the foot here a bit. I do remember the ORCP, where I suggested some more substantial content work might improve your chances at RfA (and hopefully persuade you that writing quality content is fun, motivating you to do some more). Unfortunately, you then abandoned the GA work you started, which required other people to try and contact you and spend time working around this. I appreciate there might have been reasons for your absence, but you can only imagine how much worse this scenario would be if, say, it had been over a block you'd made as an administrator, instead of a GA review. Like Pppery, I think the answer to Barkeep's question just doesn't fill me the confidence you'd be able to effectively resolve disputes and defuse difficult situations. The principal difference between GoldenRing's RfA, and this one, is that GoldenRing gave brilliant answers to questions, such as explaining that blocking longstanding content contributors might create more problems than they solve when the "pitchfork brigade" turn up, which a significant number of longtime editors thought was insightful and thought-provoking.Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

   @Ritchie333: I don't know what you're seeing in Shushugah's answers in particular, because I'm finding it to be a very patient response to what is not a very strong collection of questions. References in the answers indicate knowledge of the history of Wikipedia and that they are keeping up-to-date with current community feeling (including a thoroughly well-considered position on recall), more than I expected given how the opposers are painting the candidate's "inexperience". There's also a pun that I very much enjoyed: ... I do not view editing and specifically adminship as carrying a hammer in search of a nail (nor sickle). — Bilorv (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

9. Oppose Wikipedia has enough admins. Admins are not the solution, admins are the problem. FourPaws (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

   I'm not sure what your intentions were in making this comment, but from my perspective it's functionally indistinguishable from trolling. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

   It's my opinion. There is nothing in the guidelines that says I have to be strictly unopinionated. If I am wrong then please cite what I have missed. It is dangerous to label opinions you disagree with as trolling, blasphemy, or defamation without trekking a slippery slope of censorship. FourPaws (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

   Wikipedia:Advice for RfA voters#Voting 'Oppose' "Too many admins: If you don't like the Wikipedia system of adminship, RfA is not the place to get the system changed, so don't use RfA as a political platform; your vote will not be counted and you'll only make yourself look silly." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

   I call a spade a spade, and a pointless comment bordering on trolling a pointless comment bordering on trolling. See also Ritchie's reply. You doth protest too much. Nobody is censoring you, we're just telling you that you made a dumb comment. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

10. Oppose. I commend you for being bold and strongly encourage you to keep up the good work at the Teahouse and Help Desk. I also want to say, I fully understand that real life gets in the way sometimes, and nobody is expected to commit hours to Wikipedia every day. However, I'm concerned by sudden gaps in activity that result in unanswered talk page messages and unfinished commitments. For instance, this thread on unfinished GA reviews (March 2022) and this unfulfilled (AFAICT) request for help regarding an article you sent to AfD (May 2022) both beg the question as to what might (or might not) happen in cases concerning potentially controversial admin actions – per WP:ADMINACCT. I'd be happy to support a future RfA if I can be assured that this won't be an issue, and you show dedicated and/or long-term activity in an area that demonstrates a clearer need for the tools. ^Complex/_Rational 23:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
11. Oppose I think it's a big plus to have someone whose substantive interest in the project is in a different and important field. But I have a hard time getting past the rationale being "we don't have enough admins", citing backlogs in areas where the candidate has minimal involvement. This isn't a matter of "no need for the tools" it's more of thinking that this nomination falls under the category of

    Larry Kroger?
    Yeah, we need the dues.
    Good. Larry Kroger is now pledged to Delta Tau Chi.

    Banks Irk (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
12. Oppose per above. Concerns with experience, activity levels, and no demonstrated need for the tools. -FASTILY 00:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
13. Oppose - I do think the editor doesn't have enough demonstrable experience in areas that would give us an idea of how they would handle the administrative tools and while "we need more administrators" is perhaps a reason to nominate candidates, it is not a reason to give the tools to any single candidate. The edit count is not something I take issue with; I'd rather an editor make 50 edits creating a fully fleshed out article ready for GAN than an editor making 5,000 edits adding or tweaking categories on articles. The issue is that with those edits I don't really see much in areas that can give someone an idea of how this person handles consensus, the implementation of policies and guidelines, speedy deletion/AfD, or anything like that. This is certainly not a "no never" vote, but is a "not yet" one. - Aoidh (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
14. Regretful Oppose My interactions with Shushugah have thankfully been positive. I think he has the right temperament, but I don't think he has the relevant experience just yet for adminship. Seven thousand edits is certainly nothing to scoff at, but I expect at least ten to twelve thousand before I expect support. GoldenRing and Colin M are the exceptions, because the former had outstanding answers to questions and the latter had a great temperament and content creation. But after four years on the project, I would've expected at least ten thousand edits and one good article. Creating non-stub articles is fine, but I expect at least one good article coming from a coordinator of the June 2022 Backlog drive. The answer to Barkeep's question also does not inspire much confidence. Helping clear out the backlog is honorable, but I don't see much recent admin-esque experience in a given area such as requested moves, new page patrol, or countervandalism. As always, there are exceptions to my criteria, but these shortcomings unfortunately make your adminship a possible shot in the dark. My suggestion is that you have at least twelve months of constant activity, showing us that you will be there for the community and not abandoning your GA reviews as other !voters have mentioned. Accountability is key, so please be willing to show when you have been wrong. Maybe make something similar to my mistake list? It certainly helps me learn from when I've made major mistakes. Don't give up just yet! Come back in a year when you can show us what you're made of! CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral – The right person can learn all the necessary skills to be an effective admin. However, learning all the necessary skills does not make you the right person to have admin role. That's being said, I think that the nominator should have more experience working at admin places to gain experience. Though having low edit count is a ridiculous thing to oppose an RfA on, having little experience can be. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

General comments

• For those considering opposing on a low edit count, consider this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Basalisk/Elahrairah was voted in a couple years ago with a similar count, and he's done fine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I understand how time compresses the longer we stay on Wikipedia but I'm not sure I'd say nearly 10 years ago is a couple years ago. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps, but the point is 6500 edits can be enough, or might not be enough, depending on the quality of the edits, not the count. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• For those considering supporting despite a low edit count, consider this. —Cryptic 23:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)