Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shushugah


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it. 

Shushugah
'''Final (59/46/20) ; ended 12:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC) - Withdrawn by nominator. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)'''

Nomination
– Inspired by Requests for adminship/DatGuy, I am boldly self-nominating myself, because fundamentally there is a shortage of admins. I intent intend 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)


 * Paraphrasing my earlier coments, I am deeply grateful for the civility and consideration by all participants thus far, especially those with oppose rationals. This potentially reflects a positive change in RfA culture. The civility/cordiality afforded to me means I would be very open to re-nominating/being nominated again in the future, and I hope the many other more qualified candidates (many who have given reflective feedback here) also consider running after seeing a civil, albeit unsucessful RfA. I have a lot of reflections/improvements to make and will continue to be a net-positive with the current tooling I have in content creation, Teahouse amongst other places. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:21, 13 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 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: 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 
 * 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: 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 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 Requests for adminship/Ceradon (worth noting they got desysopped after failed disclosure of alternates and failed a second RfA Requests for adminship/Ceradon 2). I personally resonated/found lot of similarity with Requests for adminship/Samwalton9. In the Comments section of this RfA, User:Ritchie333 points out 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: It would be mostly content related still.


 * One of the areas where as enwp we intentionally (and I think mostly rightly so) create additional work for admins, is when it comes to page protections. We could technically eliminate this backlog by banning IP editing, a contentious topic in its own right.


 * The vast majority of WP:RFPP work involves adding temporary page protected requiring WP:CONFIRMed status (effectivelly barring IP editors outside of talk pages, unless the talk page too is protected, in which case an edit request) is required.


 * Specifically in the case of Breast tax I monitored the page as a content contributor, because I know/believe IP users make quality contributions. I would ensure that page protections are purely preventive, even if it makes more work for Admins/page protectors. In this case, because it's about WP:CASTE and has been consistently vandalized for years, I think permanent protection by User:El_C was the right call. Ironically, my knowledge of Hebrew and past editing/history with I/P topics means I would refrain from RFPP or any other admin activity there as being WP:INVOLVED despite it being relevant areas for mass WP:ECP protection. My content/contextual knowledge would be more useful in thos places on a discussion board anyways.


 * Fundamentally, I am going to double down on doing any research/specific needs for the tool. With 17 RfA's a year (both succesfull/unsucessful) since 2018, there will be plenty of opportunities to use the mop, but fewer opportunities to onboard trusted/competent editors. One of the hardest areas in content is probably WP:COPYVIO. I am thankful for generous editors like User:Diannaa who in 2018 added a Pd-notice and gently explained to me why Henderson v. United States (2013) was missing attribution (it is also my least proud article) instead of tearing/sending scary notifications. It is not an area of work I see myself focusing on solely anytime soon. Copyvio checking happens when I do other work like GA (but as given feedback from others, I have conduct to improve on there too).


 * Now let's get political... I know that IP editors make quality contributions, and in some languages editions like jpwk they're even the norm. I am quite concerned with the possibly naive notion that IP addresses are somehow more "private" than registered accounts, especially given the default ban on VPNs, staticness of some IPs and prominent of behavorial/grammar analysis nowadays. That said, I do think it's good the Wikimedia foundation is exploring new ways to encourage people to register for accounts, ping/notify IP accounts or even conduct time scoped experiments restricting IP addresses. In all of my editing, even on tenacious pages like Breast tax or TeaHouse, I've treated IP editors with respect/civility they're accorded, even when they're making bold/non constructive edits.


 * My less spicy take would be that I specifically did not have very good experience with Reviewing pending changes, a well intentioned project with incredibly complex scenarios for the person reviewing a pending change, especially on high volume pages. I would like to understand better how it is similar/different from what dewp enables by default.


 * To conclude, I am open to suggestions from the community of specific areas to work in, but hope to balance the mixture of joy/curiosity from content editing, and the drudgery of repetitive tasks (which I tend to enjoy less, though I will do a lot for free caffeine) ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

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)
 * Optional question from VickKiang:
 * A: 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 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)
 * Follow-up question from VickKiang
 * 10.2. You stated that G11 are articles tagged as unambiguous advertisements, but G11 is the most malicious/willful misunderstanding of Wikipedia, while the latter two are likely mistakes productive/new editors might make. Could you please clarify on the overlap between G11 and U5? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A: G11 and U5 absolutely overlap when there is content in unserspace that is promotional, whether it is a travel blog, a draft of how awesome evilcoin crypto-currency is or the vanity curriculum vitae of a non-academic. Great care should be taken, not to G11/U5 tag a biography of a professor solely because their draft consists of primary references that appear to promotional and somewhat vanity side per PROF. I would likely tag the first two cases as both G11 and U5, so that anyone patrolling either tags would find it. G11 could be more important/easier for admins to review in context of a network of socks/promotional editing and or attempts to bypass prior review processes. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:06, 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: 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)
 * Yes, I was thanked, but the credit for the review still went to Shushuga. I had asked that he remove himself as the reviewer, allowing me replace him since I had already done the work, but he never did. Perhaps this would be a good place to address that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jenhawk777 I did not realize this was still an issue, and wish I had addressed this months earlier. I edited the top line of Talk:Devil in Christianity/GA1 to make it clear you are the sole reviewer, as you have done 95% of the work, specifically completing the review. From a technical point of view, many bot/GA review counters simply look for the page creators so still giving me the undeserved credit.
 * The WP:GA project sometimes proposes WP:G6 tag when the review hasn't started. In this case even though it has started, I would also offer a G6 deletion with, allowing Jenhawk777 to recreate the page itself
 * Alternatively, Jenhawk777 could mark it as G7, arguably as the primary author, which would be less preferable, not because of my bit, but because VenusFeuerFalle was a major contributor in the discussion (as the nominator).
 * In 27 March when I returned (after of some real-life issues including omricon) I tried to decrease the burden on others, by, making it clear, the improved articles was the awards, not any barnstars nor accounting of GA review counts. So despite having completed ~15 GAs in a backlog, I have opted not to receive any formal recognition. Instead, I volunteered as a project maintainer for June 2022 backlog. I strived to give others feedback on their GA reviews earlier on, something that was absent in my case, even after 2 months). I reviewed a much more humble set of 5 GANs this time around too.
 * Regardless of what happens at this RfA, I have clearly let down/concerned a number of people with my unexplained withdrawal from GA activity earlier this year, and specifically hurt people whom I respect a lot, such as yourself. I would like to make any technical/emotional repairs/cleanups needed now and going forward. I will document my personal mistakes/reflections in User:Shushugah/Mistakes and whatever technical process we come up, for correctly giving GA reviewer credit, we should document them in WP:GA for the next time it happens. Given that the discussion is happening here already, I am happy to address/fix any other GA or other issues here, as it offers people a chance to see how I conduct myself under larger scrutiny, instead of somewhere on a low volume talk-page, though that is usually what I would suggest in most cases when a group of editors are resolving something. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Because there are more questions about Jenhawk777's and I's correspondance, I'll enclose the links directly here. JennyHawk777 and others are welcome to include any corresponding communications I missed. I do not wish to WP:BLUDGEON this point, but just provide more context at least.
 * User_talk:Shushugah and User_talk:Shushugah regretfully no replies from me. This is the time I was inactive due to irl stuff
 * I awarded JenHawk777 a barnstar and they replied ~mid March
 * 18 April they contacted me and I passed it on their request. I didn't interpret this as needing action beyond passing.
 * 20 April I see now they mentioned request to switch name of reviewer. I must have missed this or the misinterpreted specific request prior, as I passed it on 18 April. Talk:Devil in Christianity/GA1 ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Optional question from Dr.Pinsky
 * 12. You see these usernames at WP:UAA. How would you respond to each of these?


 * Shushugah2
 * Good faith editor
 * Nordisk real estate
 * Future Admin
 * Borderline personality disorder
 * A:I would first check if any of following accounts have made recent edits/been active in past month. I might add them to my watchlist out of curiosity. Just because a tree falls in the forest doesn't mean anyone needs to mind. Now for the specifics in case they are active:


 * Shushugah2, I would WP:AGF first and message them/asking them how they came across their name. It's possible they independently wanted to be Shushugah too only to find that I squatted the username first. This could be a notable entry in Editors who may be confused. Hopefully we don't edit same areas/articles, otherwise more explicit clarifications/distinctions may be required. If their content/conduct clearly shows they're trying to impersonate me, e.g. using my photos, claiming to have Chutzpa on an RfA etc.. another admin should handle it, as I'd be WP:INVOLVED/target of impersonation, but also because I don't have enough experience/guidelines on appropriate blocking procedures, timewise and policy wise.


 * User:Good_faith_editor. If their name is misleading, because it turns out they're NOT good faith this would be addressed elsewhere by whatever bad faith conduct they're conducting in. Otherwise, I like the name Good faith and it made me smile.


 * User:Future_Admin wiki-legally speaking, there is nothing wrong with expressing desire to be an admin (I'd be a hypocrite on RfA of all places), but it's not a positive sign, that they see it as some WP:TROPHY or hat collecting and might misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. I might send a friendly message to them, explaining why other editors might frown upon it. I would not do anything in this case. They're explicitly stating they are NOT an admin. I cannot think/find any policy demanding an immediate renaming here, so asides from leaning towards doing nothing, I'd seek further input at WP:RFCN and get input from others. We can do more harm, scaring away potential editors, than retaining while fixing some wiki-bureacratic rules at a later period. Ironically if they did become an admin, this username would become misleading and I would strong encourage them to change it.


 * User:Nordisk_real_estate is a case of WP:SHAREDACCOUNT, but I would see if they've made any WP:PAID disclosures and if they tried to abide by COI by requesting edits on Talk:Nordisk page instead of directly editing. In such a case, I would not have reported them first myself, rather I would first approach them with instructions on their talk page on how to change their name to something like User:Sammy at Nordisk real estate. While many promotional accounts fundamentally misunderstand Wikipedia, I think we should first attempt to let them rectify any mistakes. However, because they were reported already, an admin should handle it, which still means checking if they made promotional edits. If yes, they should be blocked immediately with instructions to change. If they haven't edited promotionally, they should be give the opportuity to fix first. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * User:Borderline personality disorder, there is nothing wrong with this that I can think of. I would be more concerned about stigma/ignorance/harassment by other users who have prejudices against people with BPD. I might look at their edits, to see if they have problems of WP:OWNERSHIP over certain topics, e.g. Borderline personality disorder. Being neurodivergent on enwp is more likely than offline, but it's also not in itself, an excuse to violate policy or bluntly, be an asshole to others. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Optional question from Mythdon
 * 13. You've stated in your RFA that you've never been blocked, despite working in contentious areas. Your answer to Q3 only includes a diff of an "unwelcome" post to your talk page, but other than that, your RFA statement and your answers to the questions only gives a vague description (without elaborating) as to how you've handled yourself in those conflicts. Could you please give other/more detailed example(s) as to conflicts you've had with other editor(s) and how you handled it?
 * A:Given that I have only have ~7000 edits, it was easier for me to comb through all of them, and compile the most critical ones.


 * Keeping my cool and policy focused in deletion discussions: In particular, any content creator will know that defending your content can lead to increased anxiety/stress, so I always try to assume good faith of editors, and stay focused on content. Reflectinfg on my past edits I know two things: I have many many numerous policy mistakes over the year, even given incorrect advice (and learned from it) but never ever have I lost my cool/engaged in hostility with other editors. There were situations I found personally tense, even if I kept diplomatic decorum at all times, but I will let the community be the judge of that, by looking at the some following examples in more depth.


 * Another thing I was surprised by, in May 2018, when I started editing, I had an internal/gamified goal of reaching WP:ECP so I could edit certain topics, but since then, I've almost seldom edited such topics, instead deferring to reading/monitoring talk pages and taking action only absolutely where needed. I have a broad interest in Israel/Palestine topics, but for example could imagine mediating more regularly in South Asian related topics, an area I have growing familiarity with, but limited personal interest in editing on. Still I have made a number of constructive edits for Dalit, Breast tax and try to keep up with ARBCOM decisions like South Asian social groups AN discussion (WP:GS/CASTE).


 * In situations like Talk:Alexa O'Brien/Archive 1, I was involved, but in one of the few ANI cases I read/monitored closely, I was surprised by the outcome/willingness of community to intervene in what I incorrectly percieved as WP:Unblockables. It's one of the reasons why I dislike editing BLP articles, of lesser known figures. But that's an RfC for another forum, about whether BLP profiles should be easier to delete on request of subject it's covering, in cases where it's not blatantly news/public interest.


 * Libcom.org was AfD'd 3x already when I created it, so I preemptively tried to address it on talk page Talk:Libcom.org and further in the 4th AfD itself: Articles for deletion/Libcom.org (4th nomination). Despite aspersions like I stayed 100% focused on policy and didn't engage ad hominem statements.


 * I sensed my personal biases coming, when I started reviewing Talk:Redskin/GA1 and I was mentally bracing for a conflict, over the usage of [unattributed] racial slurs in the article, which I removed and raised in discussion. To my delight, because of my calm demeanor and AGF, User:WriterArtistDC ended up having a very productive review together and I was satisfied the article was of GA status, an unexpected pleasant outcome. A number of articles I have created have been marked for deletion/POV and all amicable resolved. Microsoft and unions (the NPP reviewer commented on this RfA; Tesla and unions etc..


 * In terms of motivation, I find the endless pile of crank-work exhausting/dissatifying, but enjoy being able to significantly reduce a backlog, even if the work is more mechanically repetitive, for example emptying in September 2021 after noticing some merged infoboxes had incompatible template data and params and creating all templates for receiving country and sending countries which entailed a lot of technical cleanup of individual articles (RMT, PROD'ing) etc...


 * '''Cases it got a little tempered (but not quite frothy/steamy yet)
 * Removing confederate flag from userbox. In retrospect, I could have raised a discussion instead of implying that the infobox creators/users were reverring the confederate flag. I should have waited longer/discussed first or even modified my edit message if I am going to be bold still. This was not an obvious case of harassment/glorification.


 * Not surprisingly, Hamas article stirrs strong opinions. I wouldn't opine the same way nowadays, but think my conduct has always been even tempered/consensus driven before making mainspace edits. See Talk:Hamas/Archive 18 for numerous discussions I have made there. In more recent years, I've mostly passively read the talk/article progression and opined where absolutely necessary. I am rarely in a WP:RUSH. I was surprised to see I haven't edited more than I on various I/P topics, but I believe my contributions focus on less of the WP:NOTNEWS cycle and more on longer term/quality sourcing, e.g. this review Talk:Palestinian enclaves/GA2 and corresponding edits I have made in the article.


 * Request for protections of Dalit article, which was absolutely needed. People might construe my mention of Hindutva as being a certain POV.


 * I was directed to this from a TH thread, where I firmly explain to a user how they can find their prior edits, while also stating that shouldn't interact with OaxahaGenius in a transparent and light mediation scenario: User_talk:OaxacaGenius


 * I am unclear to myself even whether I am teasing myself or another editor with wiki-lawyering reference/puns. The fact it's not clear to me a year later, means it's open for ambiguity from other people, something that's less preferable amongst people who don't know each other well.


 * This was absolutely the most stressful/nerve wracking exchange (Talk:U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement/Archive 2) I ever had in my entire time on Wikipedia, all in June-August 2018. Reflecting on my edits, I did not focus solely on content, I also discussed conduct/aspersions and would not do the same nowadays. I read Thewolfchild tell admins to 'fuck off', which really intimidated me on top as well. I have intentionally not interacted with this editor since on purpose, and it seems they've changed their candor as well. I do not wish to dig the past for the sake of it, but since people are pressing me for specifically stressful scenarios, there it is.


 * COI.
 * In interest of transparency, I absolutely should have disclosed that I met this person in 2011 during Occupy Wall Street when I raised this AfD in 2018: Articles for deletion/Brendan Hunt (activist). I believe my reasoning still stands and a voluntary COI is optional in this case, but it reflects the kind of judgment that I do not wish to be, as an editor today and certainly not as an admin. I've made similar 3 edits on Molly Crabapple also in 2018 noting her recent published book, despite having a friendly relation. In more recent times, you can see I've strictly adhered to this for example at Talk:2021 Gorillas strikes, Talk:European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, Talk:Tech Workers Coalition. If granted the mop, I would commit to maintaining User:Shushugah/COI to make it easier for myself/others to address my conflicts.


 * Optional question from Therapyisgood
 * 14. If this RFA is successful, will you delete the main page?
 * A: This question was asked in jest, but it raises a philosophical debate. The most prominent content on main page is WP:TFA. Should content that has been reviewed of highest quality namely WP:FA, cumulatively 5,000 such articles or a mere 0.01% of main space articles, be editable by absolutely anyone afterwards? For me personally, this is the freaking appeal of Wikipedia. (See For and Against TFA protection. The encyclopedia editable by anyone, even the high quality article that has been stable for some time. Of course my edits (rightfully so) may be scrutinized and subject to longstanding consensus. I am less enthusiastic however for freely editing widely transcluded templates. Many reports we get from users about blatant vandalism that appears on Main page; are due to semi-protected pages having unprotected templates, which are harder for a well intentioned but newer user to detect and correctly revert. Other times, the template vandalism have been speedily reverted, but due to caching their propagation takes some time. As a programmer, I know the two hardest things in computing are naming, caching and

off by one errors. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 07:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Optional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards
 * 15 As required to disclose did not see it in your statement have you ever edited for pay?
 * A: Nope. I did receive money for a presentation on one occasion, elaborated below. There is a delicious irony (or display of financial privilege) for someone like me to edit articles about labour rights, while doing it for free. I think it is not a statistical coincidence that I am a male editor from the global-north working in a well compensated field. I think there are more conversations to be had about responsible/disclosed paid editing (e.g GLAM collaboration) but that is a side tangent from your straightforward question.


 * I once received a 250€ speaker fee from ECCHR for a presentation about Wikipedia editing. For that reason I noted a disclosure on Talk:European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights. I gave them guidelines on how to responsibly request edits, WP:PAID, WP:ADVOCACY in relation to articles about themselves and legislation they advocated for like the Supply Chain Act. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 08:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Optional question from Toadspike
 * 11. I am leaning towards supporting you, but I am still left wondering: Why do you need admin tools? I have read through all of the above and don't see where you cannot simply continue doing what you've been doing without the tools. Toadspike (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A:

Discussion

 * Links for Shushugah:
 * 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  Volten 001  ☎ 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)
 * 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)
 * This just in from 2007, "...It is to the project's benefit to grant adminship to the capable. Unless someone can show me a clear cut example of lack of understanding through faulty judgment or temperamental incompatibility through incivility or rashness, I cannot help but vote Support ...." And I think if they only perform the minimum, that's still a positive. I liked it so much, brought over from WT:RFA -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Support&mdash;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)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) Support Thank you for choosing to be a candidate. Severe  storm  28  22:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Fully qualified candidate with the right demeanor. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) 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. HouseBlastertalk 23:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) I usually don't vote if I don't have a preëxisting impression of the candidate, but this is one of those RfXs that strikes me as a potential turning-point moment. 13 opposes and no one's identified something the candidate's actually done wrong. My only concern with electing less-experienced admins is that our community, bafflingly, still lacks a community-based desysop method. But I buy the answer to Question 8, so I'm willing to take a chance on someone who seems to make up for in chutzpah what he lacks in edit count. I'll sit on this side of the fence unless someone can give me a reason to oppose that's based on the candidate's edits so far. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 00:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Somewhat random, abstract and rarefied me thinks, and not IMHO, metrics reflective of actual suitability. A cookie cutter approach to qualities not readily measurable.. --  Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Support because they have the right qualities for an admin and explain things well. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 06:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Support — I agree with the reasoning of Bilorv. All interactions I have had with this user were positive, and they seem competent for adminship. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Per Bilorv; just as a sidenote to some opposes because of no demonstrated need tor the tools: no one really needs the tools as long as we have people who have at least the right to push the respective (and needed) buttons. And we need as many of those as are willing, able and with clue. Lectonar (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. An admin needs to understand how Wikipedia works, want to help out and be kind and polite enough to not scare off good-faith contributors. I see no reason to oppose. /Julle (talk) 08:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - they'll be fine, honestly. Look, the problem with inexperienced administrators isn't lack of knowledge, anecdotal evidence was always that the closer your RfA pass rate got to 100%, the higher your probability of being desysopped through an Arbitration case. The real issue with inexperienced administrators is the need to develop self-reflection and self-awareness. They need to know when they need to stop and think. They need to know when they need to ask. They need to know when to double down and when to apologise. The more decrepit administrators amongst us have blocked, deleted or protected things when we strictly shouldn't have, sometimes we knowingly bend the rules for good reason - to look after an editor who is struggling or to defuse a situation before it gets out of hand, but a lot of the time, we've simply fucked up. What we see isn't always what's actually going on, sometimes we need to ask if there's suppressed edits or a history we're unsure about that means a warning should instead be a hard block, or if a page is no longer subject to discretionary sanctions because we've missed an amendment or clarification over with ArbCom (incidentally, the fact so much goes on in relatively obscure corners is why we started the Admin Newsletter and why it's now so successful). The important thing isn't to not fuck up (though don't be fucking up with every second admin action) but to apologise when you get it wrong and be prepared to put things right - to reverse your actions, to explain and be fully accountable, and when it's important, be prepared to stand your ground. We don't want admins who never admit they were wrong and we don't want admins who roll over every time a troll or vandal says they've got the wrong end of the stick. We want people like Shushugah who, I think, will apologise when they're wrong and stand their ground when they're right. That attitude is the important thing, not some tedious bollocks related to edit count and tenuous stretching concerning participation in certain areas (because you're rarely guaranteed to make the same comment when you've got the tools and can action something, rather than just suggest it). Shushugah will make a fine admin - I should know, I've followed a few. Nick (talk) 09:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per Nick. I don't see the edit count as an issue -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 09:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Others have expressed concerns about low activity and lack of need for the tools, these reasons to oppose are not convincing to me. The candidate has expressed a use for the tools, WP:REFUND requests, and while low activity can cause issues, it is not an issue in itself and will not necessarily cause issues. With it being difficult to remove an admin, it is understandable that some people have high expectations for candidates. However, I think that the correct way to deal with this issue is to put energy toward a process that allows for problematic admins to be desysoped rather than towards trying to filter candidates so heavily that people are discouraged from running for adminship so much that there are 20 candidates per year and people are waiting so long to run that they pass with no opposition.   09:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) Support despite low edit count is clearly active in Wikipedia processes and understands how things work. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 09:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - Actually appears to satisfy my own RfA criteria, including my experience requirement. This would be an unprecedented RfA if successful, but he makes a strong case that he would be a good administrator and I would trust him. And some of the other supporters above have been extremely convincing as well. ~Swarm~  {sting} 09:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 10) Support: Trustworthy candidate. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 11) Support This partly reflects my own experiences, but it is important in my mind to distinguish between what we consider best behaviour for content creators and what we consider best behaviour for administrators. They're not mutually exclusive by any means, but there are areas where they diverge and those parts are not necessarily a measure of the other.  I think Shushugah has reasonably responded to the GA issues, yes, taking on too much can be a problem, but that issue has been acknowledged. Treating as bad judgement a person who takes on board too much is to my mind to extend a mistake too generally.  It's certainly not indicative of ill intent, bad faith or poor character; it's a mistake of eagerness, no more or less. I think it's an error to infer that mistake provides conclusive insight into their potential with the mop.  I've interacted with Shushugah via the Organized Labour project for a number of years, they've always been supportive, interested, engaged, open, transparent. They've always sought advice via the project, made proposals, sought to build consensus.  I'm happy to have more admins who come from outside the Anglosphere. I believe it's important to assume good faith in practice rather than via words alone ... aun mer mensh iz gut. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Goldsztajn as someone speaking eloquently on the point I thought I'd ask - while there is a reasonable answer to my question, we then discovered that the candidate failed to respond to communication regarding credit and so on. When someone doesn't communicate to mitigate or correct their mistakes that's of far more concern to me than the original problem. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Nosebagbear It's reasonable to raise this issue for discussion and I understand the concern. I can only state that for me the nature of the problem is not an indicator of malintent and that's what is crucial in my view regarding assessing their potential as an admin.  Can they better manage their time? Who among us has not grappled with that problem?! I feel the checks and balances in place here are adequate to cover any deficiencies that might occur.  I assume good faith that Shushugah will be working in areas of less contention to start with and that in itself will act to mitigate the concerns raised. Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) No need for the tools, so unlikely to abuse them. —Kusma (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * (To elaborate: the only people who need the tools are those who can't persuade admins to act for them. Tools are necessary only for rouge cowboy admins) —Kusma (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Support per some of Goldsztajn's reasoning. The trick I use with GA reviews is to do part of the review offline, before deciding how much effort it's going to be and signing up for it.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Trustworthy user who is seemingly very knowledgable of policy, not a jerk, eager to help out, and no indication that they would abuse tools. Satisfies my criteria.--🚂 Locomotive207 - talk  🚂  13:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Seems a reasonably decent candidate who would likely grow into the position. I'm suprised at some of the oppose votes that are both absurd and smack of hypocrisy, considering the recent survey work. Leaving a GA which happened to me recently, is not a execuse to oppose this nomination as its been happening for years. How does that relate to admin work? Real life gets in the way. And the false argument about not needing the tools when the number of admins is falling every month, is beyond the pale. That type of muddled thinking is going to sink this place. Soon, these are the types of candidates we are going to see, as the number of admins fall below the critical level needed to sustain the project, either that or the WMF is going to come in and select them for us, and you know how that is going to feel.    scope_creep Talk  14:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - I love the boldness of this editor, and I have looked at some of their contributions. I think they'll use this tool well.  Comr Melody Idoghor  (talk)  17:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) I was afraid this would happen when I saw they had <7000 edits, but I still think that's plenty to figure out whether they're clueful and editing in good faith or not, and I still think it's self-defeating for us to make good people jump through pointless hoops. Thanks for volunteering, Shushugah. It's not you, it's us. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Per Nick, Floq. --JBL (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Once upon a time, this thing was no big deal. Clearly time has passed since then. Nevertheless. — Trey Maturin has spoken 18:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Why not? It seems like a good administrator. Drummingman (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. I understand prejudice against them for a low edit count, but they seem to have all the necessary knowledge, and adminship wasn't, isn't, and will never be a big WP:DEAL.  CLYDE  FRANKLIN  22:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 11) Support – Even though I haven't encountered him, candidate seems reasonable in his answers. The dearth of admins hasn't yet meant that my requests have gone unanswered, but it is dispiriting to see the hemorraging of admins reported in their newsletter. This candidacy doesn't seem viable at this point, but I'll give my support, to encourage reasonable self-noms in the future, if nothing else. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 12) Moral support for an editor whose heart seems to be in the right place and is developing clue. Time was when 6K edits were enough. My only concern is WP:ADMINACCT given their record of reviewing GAs, but it looks like the candidate has learned from this.  Mini  apolis  23:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 13) Support "No Big Deal" has become a meaningless cliché. The candidate wants to change that and has patiently withstood "track record" BS so far. That is enough for me to support. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Every interaction or edit I've seen from Shushugah has been excellent. Reading the comments about their supposed low edit count, I was suprised that 6,000 edits isn't considered to be a suitable amount, espeically for an editor who seems to focus on adding material and improving articles. Meanderingbartender (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 15) Support 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 01:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Has a clue. –– FormalDude   talk   01:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 17) Support: I have seen them work elsewhere. I see no issues honestly. Has a clue, is civil, and willing to help out. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 18) Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 19) Support: I haven't voted in RfA for a while, but it's amazing how much stock people take in edit count for an admin. Edit count as a barometer of experience is laughable. The answers to the questions were solid, I saw no issues, this guy would be a net positive. It's just a mop, and while there's nothing special about being a janitor Shushugah seems to want the job. Let him have it. S EMMENDINGER  ( talk ) 13:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Not worried so much by the number of edits, but the periods of minimal editing are counting against you. If this attempt doesn't succeed, please don't be discouraged, but edit more regularly for several months & try again. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 21) OOjs UI icon add-constructive.svg Support, a net positive. &#8213; <span id="Qwerfjkl:1660229325701:WikipediaFTTCLNRequests_for_adminship/Shushugah" class="FTTCmt"> Qwerfjkl talk  14:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 22) Support This is another net positive, and I agree that "No need for the tools" is a poor reason to oppose. GrammarDamner   how are things?  16:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 23) Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 24) Support Shellwood (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 25) Support Having the tools really is no Big Deal. Seth Whales   talk  21:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. Yes, NO BIG DEAL. If you do a few admin actions a month, and don't screw up much, that is a net positive. (just as much as mine...) If you do screw up... be aware that I, and likely many of these support votes will be on the front line kicking you out. I really hope you make it, I think I do not vote here in a looong time, and that you find a place to help. - Nabla (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 27) Support. Another "why not". They don't seem to be a bad editor. --JackFromWisconsin (talk &#124; contribs) 00:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 28) Support Q8. Hipocrite (talk) 02:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 29) Support checking out deleted contribs, looks like user suitably nominates for deletion, and helps improve others' pages with gnome edits. Wikipedia has need of people to use admin tools. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 30) Support I've seen good edits from Shushugah "in the wild" on some German and labor topics and they have been solidly positive. No qualms from my side.-<b style="background:#00ffff">Ich</b> (talk) 11:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 31) Support. Good temperament, solid communicator. Editing experience is quite sufficient to judge trustworthiness. Activity gaps don't bother me per se (we are all volunteers). The GAN vanishing has been suboptimal, but I trust candidate has learned from it. And if not, while ADMINACCT is an expectation, we deal with no-longer active admins, temporarily or permanently, quite often. Martinp (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 32) Support Shushugah seems sensible and trustworthy. I commend him for his willingness to serve the community. Let them have the mop, I say! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 33) Support. Well tempered, willing to communicate, willing to learn from others and from  own mistakes, lots for  to do. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:37, 13 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)
 * After reading some of the support !votes I'm inclined to expand a bit on my rationale: If the candidate had more demonstrated experience in an administrative area (e.g. CSD/AIV/RFPP) with a similar level of experience & edit count overall, or more general experience overall (and the same use case), I would probably support, however they are currently not at the threshold where I can leverage overall experience for lack of administrative experience to a point where I can support. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 10:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC) edited 18:07
 * 1) 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)
 * Assisting at [..] content creation aren't a reason for being an admin: Isn't content creation what we are here for? <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x Deadbeef 03:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, and admins should have content creation experience, but my point was creating content doesn't require the admin toolset. -Kj cheetham (talk) 07:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. Whilst I acknowledge the mention of WP:REFUND as something to use the toolset on initially, I still maintain they lack the experience required to be an admin (which is not the same as simple edit counts), especially after reading some of the responses about CSD and dealing with a problematic userbox. They seem to have the right sort of temperament overall though, and seem to have learned about taking on too much at once from previous GA reviewing. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I appreciate the nominee's work but largely agree with what  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)
 * I'd like to double down on my !vote after reading the answer to Q10: the nominee's thoughts on A7 are difficult to follow since they don't discuss the key concept ('claim of significance') in their answer. The mention of SNG/GNG makes me think that the nominee believes A7 to be connected with notability while in fact the criterion aims only at the lower bar of significance. I also don't understand why draftifying helps with A7 since moving an article to draft is designed to remove an article on a subject of solid notability (which A7 candidates very rarely are) from the mainspace. I'd want an admin to have a good grasp of this demanding but important CSD criterion regardless of their intended specialism. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) Oppose - I do not see either the experience in administrative areas or clear focus that would be a convincing reason for me to support here. We are all concerned about the lack of admins, but that is more to do with the volume of admin actions that we as a community can manage as opposed to just number of admins per se from what I can tell. 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 ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 22:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC), reworded 07:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ixtal I did request an WP:OCRP in March 2021, see Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 14. I made an informed decision when I opened this self-nomination. While I cannot predict where this RfA will go, either way I intend to continue being a net positive for the project and also learn from the thoughtful/generous feedback many other editors here are providing, particularly from the oppose statements. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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 * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  22:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose (moved to neutral) 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.<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Oppose Wikipedia has enough admins. Admins are not the solution, admins are the problem. because I do not believe this user will properly understand my concerns on Wikipedia and whose interests will not align with mine. Note: edited because a people got really butthurt about my opinion not being in the right spot. Please God forgive me!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)
 * Advice for RfA voters "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." <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(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)
 * Ah, common, y'all. Lay off. The crats will decide the dumb/smartness of the rationale. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * At least Ritchie cited what I missed instead of calling me a troll or dumb. I'd like to see an arbitration committee determine looking silly or making dumb comments as something to be punished let alone deserving ridicule over. I think we have bigger problems than admins if being dumb is a community violation. I'd recommend user Trainsanddotherthings freshen themselves up on WP:GOODFAITH. I think it's ironic I haven't used a single demeaning adjective and yet I'm the troll. Even if my vote doesn't get counted I got people's attention and there is no such thing as bad publicity. So thank you for taking the time to write hypocritical comments that don't assume good faith and treat being dumb as a cardinal sin. There is an actually constructive discussion without adjectives on my talk page (haha more publicity) on my opinion. Over there is where I have explained why I think the way I do, Mr. Bureaucrat, who will read this. FourPaws (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * User has been blocked for trolling. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 23:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * @ComplexRational I try to refrain from responding to votes since this is the community's job. But I do wish to note regarding the May 2022 Articles for deletion/Bhushita Ahuja (2nd nomination), given that it was a 2nd AfD in a short period of time, and that I also received private messages over Twitter from the creator over what seemed like a blatant hoax, I was not inclined to respond to them anywhere outside of an AfD page context, which they were aware of. In retrospect, I should have tagged the page as WP:G3 or Db-person, but I was confident AfD would have fulfilled the purpose in case of doubt, which it did. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for clarification. I'm willing to look past one specific case, though also keep in mind Consensus – namely that Consensus is reached through on-wiki discussion or by editing. Discussions elsewhere are not taken into account (i.e., on-wiki discussion is preferred when possible). I'm unaware of specific details regarding this AfD, so cannot comment further, though any admin wishing to examine the deleted article may do so. Complex / Rational  01:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) Oppose per above. Concerns with experience, activity levels, and no demonstrated need for the tools.  -  F ASTILY   00:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) 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)
 * 4) 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)
 * 5) Oppose. Well under the 20,000 edit count I believe is de rigeur these days for an admin candidate, especially a self-nom. No real need for the tools. Softlavender (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to point out that 20,000 edits for an editor whose been around 4 years would mean an approximated average of 416 edits a month every month during that time. Clover moss  (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Three of the four candidates who passed without any opposes this year had less than 20,000 edits when they passed. That suggests it's hardly de rigeur. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Sorry, but the stalled GA reviews are an issue for me, since those were from this year. --Rschen7754 02:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * To add to this - yes, Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and I realize that unforeseen things happen - however there is the matter of being considerate to the nominator when you have agreed to complete a task (or bowing out when you know you cannot complete them in a timely manner), rather than give off the appearance of claiming a bunch of reviews so you can win a contest. --Rschen7754 06:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose; the GA reviews are an issue for me as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Is "GA" a criteria for requesting adminship?  Comr Melody Idoghor  (talk)  17:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Comr Melody Idoghor  Please see discussion at Q 11. During the review under discussion there, I had surgery and a death in the family. I hold no one responsible for real life events that can't be controlled. I do hold this editor responsible for not attending to the details after returning. It seems to me that admins have to deal with lots of details. Therefore my answer would be that it isn't the GANs themselves, it's the manner in which this editor handled them and the aftermath of abandonment that indicates to me this editor is not yet ready for an adminship. You tell me what you think. It's likely it was just one small mistake. No one's perfect. How big a deal could that become as an admin? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're coming from, but I can also see that they are now aware that the manner in which they handled the abandonment wasn't good of them and I can tell that they regret it. However they also said “” I'm sure they'll be committed to anything they'd do.  Comr Melody Idoghor  (talk)  19:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sure all of that is true, and while the response you quoted is actually about the absence and not the return, this is more specific to what I am saying. I do not in any way doubt their sincerity, their willingness to learn from their mistakes, or their human right to occasionally make them. But when you screw up, and someone asks you directly, you do what you can to fix it. That wasn't done. I don't know why, and they apparently don't either. In and administrative role, I think that kind of error could turn a little problem into a big one. I could be wrong. Perhaps admins don't have to be that careful. Perhaps they don't have to be all about the details at all. I've never been an admin, so what do I know? I know what happened on that GA and that's all. Do with it whatever you think is right. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) OpposeWhile NOBIGDEAL might be an Argument, this argument could apply to many editors and I feel that an editor should first become useful in an area where the "need for the tools" is experienced before considering an RFA. Per answer to Barkeep49 their need for the tools is marginal at the moment.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I'm going to temporarily oppose now. WP needs more admins, and this editor is clearly a hard-working net positive. But I have several concerns- first is the low, inconsistent edit count. With only less than 10 edits in Feb 2022 and March 2022, then only 143 and 12 edits in the last two months, this is concerning IMHO. This alone isn't a problem at all, but the lack of any GA or FA content creation is IMO strange for a sysop. Third, the slowness of the GA reviewing for this editor could also be a concern for others (though I don't think it's that much of a problem). Finally, a larger issue is that the answers to the questions are also middling. In Q1, stated that [particularly], the scrutiny candidates face is quite stressful, and I'd like to change that by example and so on, but doesn't mention any admin tasks of interest. The editor is also fairly slow to answer Q9, which should be quite obvious IMHO. The question I asked (Q10) was also answered decently, but confusingly, with  stating that G11 are articles tagged as unambiguous advertisements. If an article on face of it appears to be spam, then stating that I almost never would draftify; but how about drafts or other namespaces tagged under G11? The lack of mentioning here is contradicative to the latter reply, while the above scenarios are presumably in mainspace/drafts intended for mainspace when commenting on U5. He also implies on draftifying articles under A7, but per WP:NPP, it's for articles with some potential merit, an A7 CSDed one without any credible claims of significance seems contrary of this requirement (thanks for  for a very clearly written analysis).  also says I sometimes observe younger people treating Wikipedia talk pages as social media/gaming platform, I'm confused on what is meant by this, Wikipedia talk as in talk pages to Wikipedia pages such as RSN, RfA... or article talk pages or user talk pages, the first few U5 doesn't apply? VickKiang (talk) 04:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. I can't see any need for tools and so I can't foresee any opportunities to learn how to use the responsibly. Perhaps wait a few more months and focus improving articles in the meantime?  Graham Beards (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - the answers to various questions don't fill me with confidence. The answers to the follow-up questions of Q10 don't actually answer the questions; I still don't know whether Shushugah knows how to differentiate between G11 and U5. This isn't that big a deal as the two are definitely fundamentally similar, but given they've expressed an interest in working with deleted articles, having past experience is core to being granted adminship. Further, regarding A7, the idea of draftifying as an alternative to deletion can often times be a get-out-of-jail-free card for editors that think something is wrong but can't figure out a policy-based reason to actually delete it. If something meets A7 and you've done a proper WP:BEFORE, it should just be deleted. Draftspace and AfC do not need to be filled with abandoned articles about non-notable topics. Drafting should only be done when the article has a possible claim of notability but needs some improvements best done outside of mainspace (i.e. verifying the accuracy of BLPs or translating non-English text). Also, that's a very broad read of WP:INVOLVED. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 14:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you can get away with a more cursory search rather than a full BEFORE prior to deleting an A7. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You need a 'full before' prior to nominating an article for AfD, but you don't need a 'full before' prior to outright deleting an article? Mr rnddude (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct. — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The way for someone to stop an A7 deletion would be to insert an (even unsourced) credible claim that isn't an obvious hoax. For example the stub: might be true, but is rather insignificant and could be deleted without a deep/any search. On the other hand,  would no longer be eligible for A7 deletion, due to a significant claim that could plausibly be true. Now to delete that article, it would need to go to AfD, where the GNG/BASIC tests would apply. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What you're saying is true Shushugah but the issue here is what obligation does an admin have before deleting something as A7. This is a very nuanced point I grant you but an important one for admins. So if the article says "Mr Smith lived in London" that is eligible for A7. However, rather than deleting this I am suggesting admin should do a quick search of google which should be sufficient to turn up that they lived in London and worked for Queen Elizabeth. Once they find that they should ideally add it to the article as they also decline the speedy deletion nomination. What I am not saying is that they have an obligation to do a full BEFORE. A quick google search should reveal they worked for Queen Elizabeth but perhaps only a full BEFORE would reveal they were a close aid (and thus likely to be notable). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that a full BEFORE isn't required for most A7s. The point I was trying to make in my !vote was that if the admin has done a valid BEFORE search (i.e., you've confirmed with a cursory search that this person doesn't have a claim of significance), then they should not move it to draftspace. Nothing useful will come of having a deletable article sitting in AfC for six months. I do accept that from what I've seen it's usually non-admins moving to draftspace (and therefore don't have the capability to delete the page outright), so this would be less of a problem should Shushugah pass this RfA.  Anarchyte  ( talk ) 03:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy deletion are designed to be speedy and for some criteria - copyvios and spam most commonly - a topic can be notable and still be correctly deleted. With A7 notability obviously does matter. A cursory search should, in my view, give some indication of importance (a pretty low bar to cross) but it can take a full BEFORE to ensure something is not notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Although I rarely vote at RfAs, I wanted to oppose this one but struggled how best to express my opposition. Anarchyte's oppose comes closest to saying what I wanted to say. The answers to the CSD questions are confusing, poorly written, and to the extent I think I understand what he is trying to say, wholly unfounded in policy. The raccoon/WP:INVOLVED comments were either off the wall or an attempt at humor that eluded me. There are other reasons for my oppose that have been articulated by others, but it is the CSD answers that grabbed me.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Apologies for adding another one to this list, but I also take issue with how the GAN reviews were conducted. Aoba47 (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I have concerns about policy knowledge based on the lack of experience in administrative areas and the responses to questions. The answers to Q10 are vague and don't fill me with confidence that the candidate actually understands CSD criteria. The mention of revdeleting promotional versions of a page is concerning as that is not a widely accepted use of revdel, and the statement that G11 is the most malicious/willful misunderstanding of Wikipedia, while the latter two are likely mistakes productive/new editors might make seems to evince a misunderstanding of what G11 is (or how CSD criteria work in general). It's based on the content of the article, not the author's intent; it's perfectly possible for a good faith editor to create a G11 page (imagine a fan creating a gushing article about their favourite musician/Youtuber/etc). Sorry, but I don't feel comfortable supporting this RfA at this time. Spicy (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose even after the candidate was asked in Q4 what they intend to use the tools for, there wasn't a clear answer. While the edit count isn't a huge issue, the fact that they have abandoned GA reviews and have sporadic activity is. Admins are expected to be accountable and have to be able to respond in a reasonable amount of time to queries. >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 16:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) I am concerned that the GA kerfuffle, combined with their low overall levels of activity, mean that they would not be able to comply with the community's expectations around WP:ADMINACCT. I am especially concerned because the answers to the questions asked don't show the depth of understanding of WIkipedia's policies, guidelines, and procedures I expect from Admins. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose I appreciate the editor being bold and realizing the need for more Admins on Wikipedia, unfortunately the answers are not very convincing, especially regarding CSD which the editor lacks experience in. I would also like to see more edits besides in the last year, which the past several months have been low. The editor also lacks experience in AfD discussions with also tells me they are not quite ready for the mop. <b style="color:#FF0000">Jay</b><b style="color:#0000FF">Jay</b><sup style="color:black">What did I do? 17:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose I don't see enough of a track record to trust this candidate with the tools. It is sometimes possible to overcome a low edit count (and anything below 10,000 is low for RfA these days) as the GoldenRing example shows, but the answers here are mostly unconvincing and don't demonstrate that they have the requisite policy knowledge. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose: I'm deeply unsatisfied by the answer to 6.1, especially with the statement that the [s]hort answer is probably nothing. There are a number of reasonable steps I would expect an admin to take, such as (a) leaving the user a note on their talk page asking them to change their user box, or (b) actually filing the MfD. WP:INVOLVED makes little sense as an excuse for inaction inasmuch as both of these steps are perfectly OK to take even if you are involved. Additionally, the hedging around whether or not a userbox that supports the human rights abuses of the Stasi—the brutally repressive secret police of a totalitarian dictatorship—against German civilians on [i]f there was a content violation (emphasis mine) leaves much to be desired. When coupled with the inconsistent activity, I share Barkeep's concerns about WP:ADMINACCT. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 9) Per Giraffer and others, not enough experience in the areas that they have indicated they want to work in, as well as the more common admin tasks. ansh. 666 19:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose for several reasons. One is that even under the basic "not a jerk, has a clue", I'm not sure it's met. I've zero reason to think they're a jerk, but while they've a good general clue at the project, I'd like a shown "clue" in at least a couple of admin areas, especially if they're going to be named in the nom. While I'd generally be satisfied by the well made apology for the GA issue side, the follow-up communications with their review replacement (or lack thereof) is a greater issue. I've no great issue with the edit count complaint and while I'm in the minority, I don't concur with NONAZIS (or here, NOSTASI). Much as I might really dislike the userbox (personally I'm on #TeamNoPoliticalUserboxes). Nosebagbear (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose, mainly due to Q11, which is a deal breaker for me. Wizardman  21:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose due to the GAR issues and the response to Q11. I also am not convinced there is a need for the bit currently. An editor should be experienced in admin areas and have a need for the tools to further their work in those areas. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 21:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose I’m not worried about his edit count, as I believe the quality of a user’s contributions is more important than quantity. My concerns lie in the candidate’s answer to Q4– what admin areas would he would work in if given the mop? He didn’t answer that; furthermore, he described his need for the tools as ‘marginal’ at the moment. He hasn't demonstrated if or why he needs the extra tools. For this reason, I have to oppose. Helen (💬📖) 03:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose.  Whimsical and impulsive self-nom, "marginal" or nonexistent need for the tools, and I don't have any sense that this nominee is anyone I could rely upon as a fellow admin.  – Athaenara  ✉  03:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose, doesn't meet my criteria for content creation, no GAs/FAs. GregJackP   Boomer!   05:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose Way too soon, 6000 edits isn’t enough. I also don’t particularly trust self-nominating - it just means that the nominee hasn’t been vetted by someone before being nominated. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 08:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, you did it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - After looking through the candidate's answers to the questions asked, as well as their overall tenure, experience, areas of project involvement, and other such contributions - I unfortunately must oppose in the most kind and respectful manner possible. Shushugah's answers to questions 1-3 (the questions that all candidates are asked in their RFA application, and where all candidates have essentially an unlimited amount of time to brainstorm, draft, put together, and present polished-and-shiny answers to beforehand) are only a few sentences long in each response. Shushugah, without a doubt, is a net positive to the project - there's no question in my mind that they have their heart in the right place and want to make Wikipedia a great place to volunteer and contribute to. However, Shushugah's contributions do not demonstrate to me that they have the level of experience and understanding that is crucial for users to master in order to use the admin toolset proficiently, intelligently, and responsibly. Their subsequent answers to follow-up community questions here don't convince me that they've gained the level and depth of knowledge and experience that I expect all admins to be able to demonstrate and prove with ease. I'm not basing any of my opposition off of the "GAN abandonment" issue that other editors have brought up, but it's absolutely understandable that other editors are. In general: assigning yourself a task, and knowing that it's a process you need to finish throughout its entirety in order for that task to be considered "completed", is something that will have the community calling one's reliability and dependability into question if you don't fully perform the role that you signed yourself up for. Shushugah is definitely a net positive for this project, but I'm sorry to say that this application is much too soon. If Shushugah increases their level of participation with the project, and continues to grow, learn, and contribute to Wikipedia as they have been, they will definitely find themselves back here someday, and without much opposition at all. How long from now would it take for Shushugah to get to that level? That will of course depend on how much Shushugah dedicates themselves and contributes to the project. I'll end by stating a phrase that's commonly used in life: "what you put in is what you'll get out". The time is just not right; not right now.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   14:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I regretfully oppose for the reasons generally put by Nosebagbear and Oshwah. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 16:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Oshwah said it better than I could. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 17:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) WP:NOTNOW, address the concerns by others and try again in the future. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 17:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. I don't have a problem with the low edit count as such, but the lack of experience in "proto-admin" work is concerning for me, particularly since, as noted by Spicy, some of the answers to questions (e.g. revdeling spam) don't demonstrate a strong understanding of policy. The GAN incident, while not a dealbreaker for me, is also a bit worrying, especially from an ADMINACCT perspective. This is definitely a "not yet" !vote rather than a "not ever" !vote, and, like others, I'd be happy to see Shushugah return to RfA once he has some solid experience in admin-adjacent areas. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Per the above and especially the GAR issue. - Tweedle (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - too inexperienced, but definitely one for the future! GiantSnowman 21:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) Reluctant oppose. While I have no issues with the low edit count, the candidate seems not to know/understand some of our key policies and practices, or they simply mix things up, which unfortunately transpires in their longish answers. For instance, in their answer to Q12, they dont't seem to distinguish between shared accounts and Usernames implying shared use, and then fail in devising the correct admin action. Similarly, they seem to misunderstand COI in A13; better still, they had not been asked about a conflict of interest but about conflicts with other editors. It was Q15 that was about COI – yet about editing for money and not about speaking about editing for money, which are two fundamentally different things. Summing up - WP:NOTYET. My two-penny's-worth advice would be to hang around in admin areas (including especially the Drama Board), follow the discussions closely and start contributing to some; I will be open to reconsidering in 6 months' time or so. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK  22:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. Inexperienced and definitely a great candidate next year. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 03:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose User already has new page and pending changes reviewer permissions which gives them rights to do other important things without needing admin. Their edit numbers and especially AfD numbers (i.e. 66) are a little low. Gusfriend (talk) 12:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 11) Not Quite Yet This was a close call where I really wanted to support. But ultimately I think the experience level is not quite where it needs to be. Take a year to beef up the edit count and padd your resume with some experience in some adminny areas. I look forward to supporting your next RfA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 12 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)
 * 2) Neutral – First off, I wanted to say that I admire your courage in the self-nomination and in the courage to link to your real-life identity. It can be hard to go against the grain. I admire people who try to be the change they want to see! I've seen you do good work in the Teahouse and Help Desk . Honestly, I'm leaning towards supporting, especially given what has stated. I do share some of the concerns shared by  about GA reviews and accountability. I think that, in general, you're on a good path and I'd be more comfortable to support you in the future, even if I'm reluctant to do so right now.  Clover moss  (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral Editing experience of this user make me not able to support but not able to oppose either. I think he is not WP:NOTNOW, because he still has some editing experience but he doesn't intend to work in admin areas, so I wouldn't support. Shushugah, you should gain some experience after 6-12 months, and I may support you. Thingofme (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the page you intended to link may have been Not quite yet and not WP:NOTNOW? Clover moss  (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is not WP:NOTNOW. Thingofme (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral, lean Oppose I am not impressed by the readiness of this candidate for adminship or even this RfA, and they have not answered Barkeep's query about what they intend to do with the mop. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  02:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral, lean Support. I wanted to support but I think adminship can be a distraction from content creation, which I believe the candidate needs to work on more. <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x Deadbeef 03:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral I thank the candidate for standing for adminship (No big deal, right?) and a willingness to help. However, even though the candidate seems to have learned from opening 20 GA reviews at once (which they indicate they didn't have the capacity to do), I'm still a bit concerned about the wikibreak because I'd like assurances that it wouldn't happen as an admin. I'd prefer to see either several months of either consistent activity or responding to queries on their talk page (even if it's just a "sorry, busy, ..."). I have experience reservations, too. They also don't have the greatest grasp on CSD, though that doesn't concern me because they said they'd request CSD more before filling CSD requests. That said, I think the candidate would resign if the community has lost faith in them and I do think they are a generally competent editor. — Danre98 ( talk ^ contribs ) 04:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral, lean Oppose The answers to question 4 & 5 (asked by Barkeep49) don't convince me that Shushugah really needs the admin tools. There is much a regular editor can try in "admin areas" before applying, and Shushugah's expertise seems to lie in other areas frankly. I'm not that concerned about the low edit count, and I believe they meet all the criteria for an administrator mindset – I'm particularly impressed by their self-restraint demonstrated in identifiyng topics where they think they should not edit. A good candidate, just not in need of adminship currently. --LordPeterII (talk) 08:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral - As I have grown more experienced, I've developed a personal view of what makes a good admin. First thing, they need to be nice - someone editors can reach out to for advice. Candidate meets that criteria. Second, they need to be someone competent as an admin, someone really interested in that work and it is here I see an issue. I do not see you doing much admin work that a toolset would make easier. Candidate has been in few AFD's and nothing even within the last month. Candidate also does not seem to have a CSD log. Not particularly active either with only 50 edits in the last two months? Only 11 reports to AIV and 6 for RPP. Only 19 patrols done. Have not seen the candidate express desire to work in copyright/SPI/UAA or indeed anywhere else we need admins. Most of what you want to do can be done already. I am not seeing any reason why you should be opposed, but conversely not seeing an active reason to support. MaxnaCarta (talk) 10:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral (moved from oppose) In Q11, Shushugah has clearly shown remorse for being inactive, given a good reason for doing so, and explained why he did not intend to take credit for reviews he didn't really follow up on. While I still have concerns, I think his heart is in the right place and he is trying to do the right thing. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see the discussion at Q.11. My issue is how he dealt with the details after his return. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral not sure yet which direction I'll go. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 13:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral leaning oppose: Need some time to mull this over properly. Seddon talk 16:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral While I believe the reason for a self-nom is good, it seems as though this editor doesn't really have a need for administrative tools . I have high respect for this editor as they did help me become a better editor by answering my questions at the Teahouse. ― <b style="background:#000;color:#f07b3a;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Kaleeb18</b>Talk<sub style="position:relative;right:20q;margin-right:-15px;">Caleb 02:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral I'm not going to pile on with an 'oppose' but although the candidate has done nothing really wrong I'm not convinced (yet) that they will make a significant impact to the corps of sysops. Registered in 2015 but did not begin editing until 2018 after which a 2-year hiatus ensued. Participation picked up slowly in 2020 but has been very low this year. I would like to see an 12 months of recent regular activity. My criteria have been cited; they are far from the strictest but their scope has led them to be referred to many times as 'Kudpung's laundry list'. That said, it boils down to insufficient experience in the traditional governance areas. I therefore don't think I would be able to support even on balancing some items against others, so on aggregated it fails. I would almost certainly support a second attempt if more boxes were to be checked on my criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t think your criteria is a laundry list Kudpung. I think it is the Gold Standard out of all the criterias, along with this one. With that said, I am glad that more users have been choosing to step up the podium and at WP:ORCP. It shows that there’s at least some courage within the ranks of potential admins, and I hope this boils over and gets some people to try again. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral on this editor at this time. I usually support or oppose at RfA based on my personal experience interacting with the editor, and I get around enough to see a lot. I do not have an impression of this editor. BD2412  T 04:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Moral support - The GAN issue noted by oppose editors gives me genuine pause, although otherwise I think I'm more sympathetic to the support arguments made thus far. At any rate, I applaud the candidate's initiative in self-nomination, as well as the oppose !votes which raise thoughtful objections while affirming the candidate's overall positive impact to the project. At the risk of wishful thinking, this feels like a step in the right direction as far as RFA culture is concerned. signed,Rosguill talk 17:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral – Per Oshwah, basically, although I am not inclined to outright oppose. I think if Shushugah takes the concerns expressed here to heart, a second RFA would be successful. –FlyingAce✈hello 17:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral – Agree with other fence-sitters. I appreciate the efforts made by this candidate but would like to see more regular editing and content creation. Deb (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral, and I really hope the candidate takes on board the feedback here and tries again after more experience. This is very much a "not yet", and certainly in no way a "not ever". Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral leaning support I applaud the candidate's bravery to step forward into the pandemonium that is an RFA; I know of them and respect their work, but do feel that some more experience would be a bonus. Another RFA in a year's time, should they choose to step forward again, and I would most probably support. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral. I just want to thank you, Shushugah, for offering to take on the admin role, and also for your valuable contributions. I don't want to oppose, as I think I could support a future run and I don't want to discourage that. But I'm not seeing sufficient understanding of a few key policies to support at this time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

General comments

 * For those considering opposing on a low edit count, consider this. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(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&cent; 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&cent; 22:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. If any of the longer-term editors want to feel super old, I was 10 years old when that RfA was running. Clover moss  (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Which running RfA are you talking about? GoldenRing or Basalisk, or Dennis Brown? —usernamekiran (talk) 12:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Clovermoss states on their userpage that they're 19, so it would have to be a 2012 RfA, which I presume is Basalisk's. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 12:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * is correct. Clover moss  (talk) 12:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You kids get off my lawn! Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * For those considering supporting despite a low edit count, consider this. —Cryptic 23:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Whataboutism. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Goldenearring had a procedural detooling due to inactivity. So did I. When I got over what real life had done to me, I returned. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I intend to let this RfA run its full 7 day period . No matter what the results will be, I am deeply grateful for the civility and consideration by all participants thus far, especially those with oppose rationals. This potentially reflects a positive change in RfA culture. In the slim chance this succeeds, this RfA will never be an outright home-run. In the event it does not success, the civility/cordiality afforded means I would be very open to re-nominating/being nominated again in the future. Either way I absolutely have a lot of reflections/improvements to make. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , if anything the cordiality of the RFA speaks volumes of you as an editor in terms of conduct/composure. I hope if you don't succeed this time that I won't have to wait too long for you to run again. Hope you have a good rest of the week :) — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 18:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I endorse the suggestions of several other editors that you run again in a year or so. I'm confident that you will be a stronger candidate then, one that I can enthusiastically support next time around. Banks Irk (talk) 19:19, 11 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 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. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(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  ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * ok with you? (There is a bit of a bug when the first oppose is striken) — xaosflux  Talk 23:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, sounds good. Moving to general comments with a note seems the best. — PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 03:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose per WP:HATC. 2405:204:5516:5179:0:0:214B:10A1 (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC) — Vote struck: IP editors are not allowed to vote in RfAs.  DanCherek (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC) // de-bolded and moved to the comments section ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * For those opposing on the grounds that there is no need for the tools: others have pointed out that this is not considered a valid reason to oppose. I also want to point out that the candidate has identified a use for the tools, specifically, WP:REFUND undeletes, and technical page moves. Both are useful work. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:REFUND is indeed a valid reason, but the majority of technical page moves can be done with only WP:PERM/PM - though the odd protected page does need a higher level of permissions. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I would encourage User:Shushugah to come back and run again after 1 to 2 years of continuous activity, with more of a focus on admin areas and more audited content creation. They are definitely a great candidate that could pass in the future, but for now, they are just under the bar of WP:NOTQUITEYET. Good luck User:Shushugah, and keep contributing to Wikipedia. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:3DAC:9F79:FDC4:B1C1 (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2 years would be a extremely excessive amount to require, as would 18 months, given that an editor could start and become an admin in that time-frame. I suspect they could do so in 6 months given sufficient commitment. 9 would be fine. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2022 (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.