Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shushugah 2

Shushugah

The following discussion is preserved as a request for adminship that has been automatically placed on hold pending a decision as to the outcome. Please do not modify the text. The result of the discussion will be posted soon.

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (42/42/4); Scheduled to end 21:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination

Shushugah (talk · contribs) – I am self-nominating myself (again) for admin, for many of the same reasons that I offered myself the first time about 7 months ago. At the current rate, we are headed towards 4 successful admin nominations in 2023, with 8 more unsuccessful ones. Either we need more admins or debundling of admin tools, or boldly acknowledge that we don't need more admins.

All that said, while my RfA has not succeeded, I still found it to be a positive experience. I have carefully read the 46 opposes from my previous RfA and I believe I have addressed several concerns, namely my lack of Good Articles (I have two now), and specifically my poor handling of GA reviews, particularly Talk:Devil in Christianity/GA1 (more on that below).

Like last time, I intend to be a net-positive on Wikipedia using the virtually same tools and permissions as 99.9% of contributors and will continue to do so, regardless of this RfA. Some of those activities are:

• Answering questions at WP:Teahouse, HelpDesk, Village Pump Technical in order to make this weird website a more welcoming space.
• Writing Good Articles about Apple worker organizations, Volkswagen worker organizations and reviewing other people's Good Articles.
• Generating hundreds of Diplomatic mission related templates and maintaining them. You can find many of them in receiving country and sending countries

Other disclosures

• Mistakes: here is a living document of my mistakes on Wikipedia, including my poor handling of GA reviews, and specifically hurting people. I believe I have rectified this and learned from it. My GA reviews now are fewer in order to give each more appropriate time.
• I am mindful WP:ADMINCONDUCT means being available to answer questions in a speedy fashion, so I would refrain from taking activity, if I knew I would realistically be unavailable afterwards.
• Financial disclosures: I received 250€ from European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights to give a workshop on Human Rights related content on Wikipedia . 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. I have noted my WP:COI on the related talk page.
• I have sporadically edited as an IP address since 2010, and since 2015 (actively from 2018 onwards) edited with this account. I have never edited with any other accounts.

• I work in several contentious areas of Wikipedia, such as American politics, Israel/Palestine, South Asian related politics. I would refrain from using admin tools in these areas, except where explicitly allowed exceptions of WP:INVOLVED, e.g. protecting an Article to further prevent active disruption/vandalism or WP:REVDEL grossly harmful material, an action that should be patently clear/necessary to any other admins who would have done the same themselves. Generally though, refraining from even appearing to be WP:INVOLVED builds trust, particularly with newer users.

Activity levels

Since 2018, my levels of activity have varied. As we enter our 3rd year of the Corona pandemic, prioritizing consistent activity and my mental health is important to me. I explicitly wish to pace my own activity and not over-commit. Others have previously pointed out that I sometimes bite more than I can chew. However, rather than wait several more years before nominating/being nominated for adminship, I would like to ask the community's trust and slowly delve into new areas.

In real life

In real life, I was elected as a full-time (released from work) Works Council Chair at a car-sharing company Share Now. Immediately after being elected, I was tasked with negotiating mass layoffs severance packages. It was like drinking from a hose, and I learnt a lot from that very stressfull experience. One of the things that could have made it less stressfull, is gradually easing into the role, which is specifically what I am requesting here.

My identity is public (Twitter account is same as my username). 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 Wikipedia space. 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.

So why do I need the tools? Users in my previous RfA lamented my lack of stated reasons for needing tools, but I still do not believe I need them. The community also decided that admin need for tools is not a valid criteria. In fact, even editing Wikipedia at all is not needed. It is an unpaid and largely thankless activity (though barnstars, kind messages from readers prove to the contrary). I only ask whether you believe I can responsibly and skillfully use a subset of the enclosed admin tools. I try to make up for my Chutzpa with reflective candor and willingness to acknowledge when I mess up. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:12, 27 March 2023 (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: I am self-nominating myself (again) for admin, for many of the same reasons that I offered myself the first time about 7 months ago. At the current rate, we are headed towards 4 successful admin nominations in 2023, with 8 more unsuccessful ones. Either we need more admins or debundling of admin tools, or boldly acknowledge that we don't need more admins (at least not badly enough).

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

A: My two Good Articles™️ on Volkswagen and Apple labour organizing drew from very different kind of sourcing of various quality and even spoken languages. Particularly with the Apple article, I had to figure out what Foxconn info belonged and didn't. In the end, I created another article on Foxconn and unions. People tend to focus on WP:EDITCOUNT which I think is a mistake. I hope these GA articles show at least a deep commitment to deeper reading/searching for sourcing (thank you Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library a largely invisible activity that may result in non-edits even.

While WikiProjects tooling feel woefully outdated, I am proud of my contributions in WP:LABOR, specifically the edit-a-thons I helped organize, and a WP:SIGNPOST interview I made with other members.

My contributions can be summarized as a mixture of content, community and technical, with a smattering of humour on this very serious website.

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

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

I am ashamed of the second example, where my neglect in communication/conduct towards Jenhawk777 revealed a problem during my first RfA. In the end I believe it was satisfactorily resolved, and I rebuilt trust with someone I never should have lost their trust in the first place. It was a humbling experience.

---

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 SchroCat

4. As you haven’t answered Q1 satisfactorily (to me, at least), why do you want to be an admin?

A: I genuinely do not believe adminship is or should be a big deal, and I think it's a paradoxical situation, where new people with vested experience are declined by the community, while inactive admins are able to hold unto their tool set, as long as they maintain (as of Wikipedia:ADMINACTIVITY2022) a modicum of minimal activity. While Wikipedia as a project is absolutely a big deal, I don't believe some technical credentials ought to be a big deal. We're not supposed to be a bureaucracy, yet RfA remains one of the most bureaucratic hurdles. For myself specifically, I have demonstrated some policy/technical proficiency and a friendly candor when interacting with new/veteran users alike, and would enjoy trying out tooling that specifically enables other users to go about Wikipedia in a safer manner, for example protecting articles from vandalism, refunding G13 drafts etc... the main genuine and difficult to monitor harm I see from adminship, is the ability of people to look at REVDELETED BLP related content, whereas other harms/abuses by admins can easily be monitored/reverted by the community.

I enjoy editing Wikipedia, and it's something I have been sticking with for some time. I am not supposed to admit it, but the joy/thrill of trying (responsibly) out different areas in this project is definitely one of my personal motivations for applying for adminship, and I don't feel pressed to express some exact roadmap/plan for my admin activity in some dire area. There will always be enough tasks, and requests for activities. The question ultimately is do you trust me enough to refrain from using the tools in areas I have no/limited experience with, and to test the waters and seek feedback early on in the areas I do have more experience in? Thank you for offering me chance to elaborate on a standard opening question.

Optional question from John M Wolfson

5. Given that this is a self-nom, did you ask anyone to nominate you again this time around, or at least ask for advice to that end?

A: Most RfA guides recommend seeking nomination/advice from experienced admins/and or RfA nominators beforehand. I intentionally disregarded this conventional wisdom the first time, and as User:Barkeep49 alludes to below, it is debatable whether to push against such conventional wisdom that serve a purpose. I have not sought external nominators this time around, as it is already clear to others, that I am/was interested in adminship. It is perhaps naivety, but I still don't believe that adminship ought to be big deal, nor should directly asking for the mop be seen as ill fated hubris. The bar for adminship should not [always] be an unanimous consensus. I have a chance, and I will take it, perfectly knowing well, that the community may does against [like the first time]. I hope other borderline/imperfect candidates step forward as well, and that we as a community break this taboo of perfectionism being the enemy of the good.

Optional question from Seraphimblade

6. If your RfA is successful, what administrative tasks and areas do you plan to focus on?

A: I dislike cranking through backlog/tasks, but do enjoy the daily stream of questions at the different Village pumps, and the dynamic needs there would inform me at first. A question that comes often at Teahouse is WP:RPP and WP:DRAFT related refunds. I direct users to those places usually, but would be great to also directly help out, and be able to continue assisting users in Teahouse, without being a mere traffic guard (though useful still).

Optional question from Giraffer

7. Briefly, what do you think has changed most between this and your previous RfA?

A: I created 2 Good Articles, did some repair work over hurt/harm I created against trusted GA reviewers (see my opening statement) and 726 edits later, I am mostly still the same person. This RfA is not a Queer Eye makeover. I have reflected on the initial RfA experience, and also do not think that a 10 or even 1 year solitude retreat is necessary to boldly repeat a self nomination. No matter what, I will not self nominate myself again. I have my position clear, but the community consensus is what drives Wikipedia at the end of the day.

Optional question from Barkeep49

8. You reference my comment below in your answer to John M Wolfson and imply in your answer that you are knowingly challenging conventional wisdom about RfA. Having a nominator is a norm but it's one I'm personally happy to see someone challenging. But it's still not clear how much you knew what you were doing and how much you explaining based on the context you've been given. Can you give me an example outside of RfA of where you showed an understanding of English Wiki's norms? Barkeep49 (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

A: When we have new editors in Teahouse (who may not necessarily command a high level English even) we offer them simple/pragmatic advice or at least essays to read, whereas the actual norms and policies might be more nuanced or even contrarian. E.g when a new editor seeks to create a vanity article about some random Youtuber (possibly even being an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY) we tell them to show User:RoySmith/Three best sources whereas the actual guideline of WP:Notability doesn't specify a minimum count.

An extensive lone scholarly source is still only one source, but may do more to establish notability than three borderline cruft web pieces on a modern day Youtuber. Something that is implicitly recognized during NPP/AfC and AfD processes. Luckily Wikipedia doesn't have scarce digital storage so both beauty and trash can co-exist, and if community consensus decides to remove an article, we have mechanisms for that.

Why I think there is a useful distinction between policy (or guideline if you want to be nitpicky) and norms matters, is because practically getting an RfC to reflect de-facto changing norms is challenging on a platform, where the most stubborn and or invested editors have a weighted voice over more timid but time reserved editors. For stuff like grammar norms, this is fine. I don't care if my arguments consist of nor compose nor comprise themselves, but someone else does, and they can "win". I do believe however, all Wikipedia mainspace articles can incrementally improve, but I do not believe 200 or even 50 people extensively opining in real-time on an RfC leads to fruitful outcomes, which sometimes leads to a grey area, or not so grey policy-arena when you use the WP:IAR safeguard to complement the gaps in our internal-guideline shaping processes.

Optional question from FormalDude

9. Are you open to WP:RECALL? If so, under what criteria?

A: If I was tactically strategic, and looking at the current voting (or weighted consensus) lord knows every vote can tip the scape, I would give a politically safe answer to this popular question. But no, I do not believe my nor other candidate's individual RfAs are the best venue for propopsing an unenforceable recall process. I do not want anyone to vest their trust in the goodwill of an admin, to voluntarily recall themselves, I want the community to establish binding procedures that can confirm their trust in the current janitors. The (re)confirmation process for Stewards on Meta is one such possibility, due to annual term limits. I heard (but don't quote me) that Sweden's admin process is subject to temporary term limits.

A conniving lying asshole could persuasively link to their personalized RfA recall process User:Shushugah/Admin recall (it is red, because it does not exist), and then decades later go back on it, not only wikilawyering, but also flat-out changing their mind, and there's nothing you or anyone else here could do about that. If you are worried about me being an asshole, then you certainly should not care about my answer to this question, and instead focus on making a binding-recall process for all admins, something I would strongly support as a community member.

Optional question from VickKiang

10. I recall that in your response to my question in the previous RfA you commented If an article on face of it appears to be spam, I'd first check if there's an older version that is acceptable...The spammy history may have to be revdeled. Has your perspective changed regarding whether it is appropriate to use revdel for this case? Thanks.

A: I want to clarify, spam is not inherently problematic (in history at least). But spam that is a copypaste from a copyrighted source would need to be REVDELETED per RD1. There are many reasons why RevDeletion is not desireable even, and this is one of them. The next time someone (re)inserts copyrighted content, it would not be easy for most editors to compare this with previously RD1 material.

Optional question from ArcAngel

11. 65% of your edits occurred in 2021. Since then you have averaged 727 edits over the past 2 years. Can you explain the spike and drop in activity since 2021?

A: This is a perfect example why WP:EDITCOUNT is not a good argument at RfA. In 2021, while I contributed to several articles that required careful reading, none of it was as extensive as in 2022/2023. I had 5,000 edits that year, 20% of that from March 2021 alone, many of which can be attributed to my work in Template creation and cleanup related to that (moving Diplomatic mission pages, transcluding templates, etc...)

Whereas in 2022/2023, I tried to pace my activity more slowly. In 2023 I can even tell when I went on vacation and unplugged completely.

In an article like Volkswagen worker organization, even by December 2021 when I have introduced 8 sources, the vast vast majority of my activity was behind the scenes, reading and collecting paywall'ed journal articles. By the time I finished and thorough read 80 sources, there was over one thousand pages of journal reading along with newspaper/articles, that is not reflected anywhere within the EDITCOUNT focus. This is a point I tried to emphasize in my response to Q8 about sourcing.

Optional question from Martindo

12. You've been open and honest about COI and possibly causing stress/confusion, but the following excerpt about "refrain...except" when you "work in several contentious areas" makes me wonder: "grossly harmful material, an action that should be patently clear/necessary to any other admins who would have done the same themselves". My question about refraining from conflict: If the action would be clear to ANY other admins, then why not wait for one of them to handle it?

A: If granted the mop, before taking any Admin activity I would observe other admins and see what are best practices. Even as a regular editor, this can be apparent in the most egregious cases that end up being discussed extensively, but for most cases of admin bits, I do not know what is happening behind the scenes, sometimes for good reason/intentinally obscured background context.

What I do know however is, some activity can wait, for example a vandal-only account usually can be reported to AIV, and while AIV is super quick, even if it wasn't, as long as the disruption on the article stopped, figuring out what other cleanup is needed can happen later (going through their other edits, and other steps that I know little about, e.g. checking for socks etc...). On occaisons I wanted to report a page to RPP, but it has already been resolved, which indicates a system that is finetuned. Those are situations where things are working. On the other hand, there were cases where a gross edit message (RD2 level) was visible and obvious to me, but if I alerted an admin publicly, I would risk bringing more attention to this while the issue not resolved. I ended up contacting an admin privately, but the whole process took about an hour. I wished I had been able to fixed the issue there and then, and have another admin review it as presumably all logg'ed admin activity are.

In Wikipedia, we tend to distinguish between content and behavioural conduct, and a consequence of this is, many of the community/admins reviewing behaviour conduct tend to have limited context/understanding of the content issue. I do not have an alternate proposal for this, but it is something I think about, and was one of the reasons why I started monitoring pages like Dalit, Breast tax and reading more about the topics in depth, beyond just reverting obvious Hindutva trolls. The most obvious vandalism is obvious from a behavioural pov, but the more subtle POV pushing, e.g. as alleged in Holocaust in Poland require a mixture of both behavioural and content expertise.

Optional question from Compassionate727

13. The responses you have given to Q1 and Q4 suggest to me that you are mostly running to make a point that adminship should be no big deal, so I am going to ask you very directly: is this accurate, or are there one or more things you actually intend to do with the toolset once you have it (and what are they)?

A: My wiki activities here are more general than specialized (although my content contributions are more niche). Immediately the specific bits I would be willing to use/explore in order are: WP:REFUNDs, WP:RPP, WP:RMT and slowly into WP:REVDEL, Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. They can be summed up as technical actions, bordering in content, with a lower focus on user intent/conduct.

I have been very candid about my personal opinion of limitations of specific policies e.g Q9 and my propensity to try out different areas, rather than commit to any specific backlogs, even though I know it will deter some people (which I do not admonish anyone for).

The nature of my personal interests and specifically my work in Teahouse leads to a very diverse set of solution to the questions/problems presented each day. 99.9% of the time I won't need or use admin tools, nor will I even need to answer questions on Teahouse, because if I wait long enough, someone else probably will. I believe we need specialized contributors, and I also believe we need more generalist contributors who are willing to make mistakes, and ask lots of questions and grow in different areas. My editing reflects a generalist area more so than anything specialized, and my interests include using the mop when/if the occaison rises.

Wikipedia is a big deal, and the responsibility all of us have as editors is a big deal. My blunt answers should not be mistaken for seeking any disruption to this project. In my interactions with new users, I seek an exceptionally civil tone even where a curt response could also suffice. However this here is an RfA with a largely experienced/diverse set of users, I think it is only fair that I express my strengths and weaknesses without sugarcoating them or embellishing myself. I have never been anything but sincere about my request for the community's trust in me, not to misuse nor go beyond my depth in permission usage.

Optional question from Extraordinary Writ

14. Under what circumstances should an IP address be blocked indefinitely?

A: Virtually never. Blocking IP addresses, even temporarily can cause numerous side-effects, so it should be done with technical understanding/competence (which I lack confidence in, despite being a software engineer). IP addresses frequently are reassigned, so blocking an IP address may prevent an unrelated person from editing, for reasons unknown to them. Generally, even if it was the same person, nothing on Wikipedia is ever meant to be punitive, only preventive actions are taken, so indefinite actions needs to be justified.

The list of presently permanently blocked IP addresses at Category:Indefinitely blocked IP addresses is rather short if you exclude proxies, which further illustrates how rare this kind of permanent block can be.

Discussion

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Shushugah
• Requests for adminship/Shushugah 2

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

---

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

Support

1. Support; Has clue, not a jerk, no big deal — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 22:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
2. I had written a whole paragraph and a half about how I respected your decision but ultimately had to yield to conventional wisdom given your answer to Q5 and your relative lack of admin experience. I looked through your logs, however, and found significant amounts of new page reviewing; combined with your category maintenance, that's quite a bit more adminny work than even I, a verified mopholder, have done in a while. Combined with your recent AfD activity, I think you'll get the hang of things, and I say that as someone who's always said that "if NOBIGDEAL is the only reason for me to support a candidate, I will oppose that candidate". Godspeed to you, And, FWIW, we don't actually need that many new admins notwithstanding the common trope, but I think you're a good fit. (This is, of course, pending any dirt opposers might bring up, hopefully nothing too terribly serious or recent.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
3. For the same reason I supported last time: has clue, seems chill, unlikely to go nuts once given the add'l buttons. 7400 edits is plenty to tell what kind of editor he is. Really. Double what I had when I ran. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
4. Support, per Floq, and per Nick, Swarm, and Tamzin the last time around. I'm seeing a thoughtful and careful user with a demonstrated use case for the tools and the judgement not break things with them. I am very favorably struck by the self-reflection demonstrated in the nominations statement; I'll go so far as to say self-reflection is the single most important trait in an admin, and the difference between successful admins and long-term editors who are unsuited for adminship. Edit-count isn't a great indicator of experience; I'm seeing experience here. And we really should not be challenging a candidate for not going hunting for nominators. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
5. Support. "I want to help people more directly" is a perfectly adequate reason to ask for adminship. The edit count does not concern me; the candidate clearly has sufficient experience to understand what they're doing, and that, not the raw number of edits, is what matters. A spot check of contributions doesn't turn up any red flags, and I'm glad to see in the answers here that the candidate can realize when they've erred and work to correct that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
6. Support I like giving the tools to someone who is willing to admit "I messed up, I apologized, I tried to make it better." Joyous! Noise! 23:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
7. I had a long paragraph written, but the first four support !votes put it better than I had it. He has articulated a use case for the tools (using them when necessary to respond to questions at the teahouse e.g. by processing a REFUND). Admins are allowed to make mistakes, as long as they learn from them; they document how they learn from mistakes. HouseBlaster^talk 23:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
8. It takes some serious courage to step up the podium for a second round, and the nomination statement reminds me of the one comment I made on his RFA 7 months ago. At the time, I was focused moreso on his raw numbers, but looking at this discussion, I can’t say that the numbers mattered as much in an RFA as they did before. Too many editors (and sysops for that matter) are inflexible and resistant to change, and I think Shushugah, while perhaps not likely to become the most prolific administrator, will be a breath of fresh air in this slowly fossilizing environment. Readers, give this candidate a chance and see what becomes of him. I trust that he will try to do the right thing, and even if this RFA goes down in flames, I hope it will push someone else into trying their hand. The Night Watch (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
9. Support well-rounded candidate with respect to both admin-adjacent and article writing work. No concerns. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
10. Support, after morally supporting the candidate's last RfA. They could use the mop, and have given me no reason to think that they'll misuse it. Miniapolis 00:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
11. Support-- might come back to expand on this rationale, but per Vanamode, mostly. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
12. Support oppose reasons are very unconvincing. If one is supposed to "need" the tools before requesting it, then one cannot actually use the tools for some time, after which one can presumably no longer need the tools. That seems like a self-perpetuating result that burdens the people who already have the tools. Banedon (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

    As a fellow supporter, I'm a bit confused by if one is supposed to "need" the tools before requesting it, then one cannot actually use the tools for some time; do you mean that one is unable to use the tools while getting experience as a non-admin? The way I see it, if someone needs the tools for, say, REFUND, they can get an RfA to get the mop and get to work on REFUND straightaway, and before then should get experience in a REFUND-adjacent field to become cognizant of such a need in the first place. In any event, we both agree on this RfA and I've always interpreted the "need" ~requirement to be more of an anti-hatcollecting device than something to be taken quite literally, but that's just me. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

    My perspective is, if I need the tools, then I need them right now. But I don't have them, and have to go through RfA. By the time RfA is over, I might no longer need the tools (e.g., another admin has already fixed the issue). It sounds to me like you are thinking of "desire" the tools instead of "need" the tools. Banedon (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

13. Support candidate has sufficient experience, a good reason for having the tools, and the right attitude about adminship. Vadder (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
14. Support The interactions I have had with Shushugah thus far have been nothing but positive. Not too long ago, I nominated the article Mandera Prison for GA status, and they were the editor to take on the review. While admittedly I have no other GA nominations to compare this too, I believe the feedback and criticism Shushugah provided me with on the article was good and warranted, especially on such a niche topic that is Somaliland legal history. I think this editor's responses especially above have been well put together and address a wide variety of potential concerns. I am happy to say I support this nom. Johnson524 (Talk!) 02:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
15. Support per my vote in the previous RfA. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
16. Support. Not seeing any sane reasons for why so many are so suspicious.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 03:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
17. Support per TheresNoTime and Miniapolis. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 06:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
18. Support They are an editor who only makes Wikipedia better with all their edits. I think they will make a fine admin. Meanderingbartender (talk) 06:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
19. Support As with last time I 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 ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
20. Supportgo for it. Seems to be a good person for Wikipedia. Self nominations...why not? In the end Be Bold is a Wikipedia guideline.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
21. Support. Good work and attitude, and I also note long tenure and high edit count. —Kusma (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

    Another plus is that the candidate does not show a need for the tools that would indicate potential for abuse. —Kusma (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

22. Support per Floquenbeam, plus, as always for me, extra points for the self-nomination. Adminship is not a country club. Bishonen | tålk 08:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC).
23. Support as adminship should not only be for "perfect" candidates. I believe that Shushugah will use his tools responsibly which I think should be the most important thing to consider when evaluating a candidate. Lightoil (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
24. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
25. Support no reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
26. Support: Sure, why not? WP:NOBIGDEAL. I don't think they'll pass this time around, but I appreciate their effort in trying to improve in the areas that others criticized. I commend them for being willing to stand up in front of the community a second time, whereas many others have decided to leave after failing at RfA. It may take a third and fourth RfA to get there, but if they keep putting in the work and improving in the areas that others criticized... then I see no reason why they cannot get there eventually. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

    I couldn't weave it well into my !vote but I want to echo the latter half of this. If this fails I hope to see them at RfA again in time. I found "No matter what, I will not self nominate myself again." to be a good show of respect but ultimately unnecessary. Nobody should have to get it right the first time. Or the second. Or... [30 Goto 10] GabberFlasted (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

27. Support "not enough admins, check; too few self-noms, check; all the signs of maturity, such as self-awareness being a necessity, check. SN54129 13:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
28. Support per TNT and Kusma. Lectonar (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
29. Support - He cares and seems like a net benefit to the project. Give them the tools and they'll build something. ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 14:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
30. I support, and would have even without the good article nominations. There are plenty of tasks that are reserved for administrators that do not require the writing of articles, but should only be deployed to trusted users. Given the many levels of oversight here, the bar for adminship is simply set too high.~TPW 15:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
31. Support slightly tentatively. None of the oppose concerns are enough to put me off. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
32. Support—I want to start by saying that I believe people may be misconstruing what Jimmy Wales intended to convey when he referred to adminship as "no big deal" 20 years ago. It was never meant to imply that the powers bestowed upon administrators are inconsequential, because they absolutely are, and always have been. What he meant was that being an administrator does not confer any special status, and that we ought to be willing to place our confidence in those who have proven themselves trustworthy.

    I've read through the opposing rationales, and I find none of them convincing. The reasons set out by TonyBallioni, for me, boil down to differences of opinion and a misunderstanding of Shushugah's perspective. You'll find plenty of administrators—even today—who still consider adminship to be "no big deal". That doesn't mean they don't take their use of the tools seriously, and are not cognizant of the damage that can be done through their improper usage. I also don't see Shushugah's nomination statement as displaying an attitude of entitlement, so much as a reasoned request for the community to trust him on the basis that we don’t believe he will abuse or misuse the tools. As much as I'd love to have administrators doing administrative work, I am perfectly fine with granting the tools to people who don't intend to clear backlogs on a regular basis, because even something as simple as an editor being able to restore a fair-use image with a proper rationale can be helpful. Every other criterion applied pertaining to experience and editing history, such as holding nominees to a minimum of edits in the tens of thousands and tenures of 5+ years, strikes me as borderline ridiculous. In the past, we've had administrators promoted with 3,000 edits and 3 months experience, and the vast majority of them turned out just fine. Yes, this dates back to 2006-2007 or so, and that was certainly a different era for the site, but the fundamentals of adminship remain more or less the same. We expect administrators to be good communicators, well-versed in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, competent, and trustworthy.

    The thing that strikes me the most about the opposing arguments is that none of them—not one—actually points to something Shushugah has done that should give us pause. Nobody has cited any misunderstandings of policy, no instances where they were rude or inconsiderate, not even any individual mistakes from their contribution history. Nobody has persuaded me into believing that the opposing points are about anything other than holding the wrong opinion. And frankly, we need a greater diversity of opinion, rather than a collective deferrence to the status quo. Unless anyone can point to something concrete that makes Shushugah unfit for adminship, I will assume that he is likely to do just fine.

    Tl;dr: Adminship is about trust. It's not about being the perfect embodiment of everything an administrator ought to be, or holding the correct opinions for the job. Do I trust Shushugah? Unless someone presents compelling evidence to the contrary, I do trust him, and I support giving him adminship. Kurtis ^(talk) 15:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

    I pointed to a misunderstanding in my oppose (that logged admin actions are reviewed). What's this candidate done to earn your trust? Do you trust everyone absent evidence to the contrary? Levivich (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

    Regarding the misunderstanding, I didn't see that, as I was working on my support rationale when you added that addendum. It's unclear to me what Shushugah meant when he said this, and it's vague enough for me to believe he may have miscommunicated his understanding of community oversight over adminship.

    As to your second question, yes I do. I don't need a lot of convincing to trust somebody's judgment enough for me to support them for adminship. It's not rocket science. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

33. Support content creator with an even, pleasant demeanor. The question for me when judging an RFA candidate is will they protect content and content creators? I looked at their contributions, answers and AfD participation. I think this candidate will be a net positive. And as Floq said, "unlikely to go nuts once given the add'l buttons". Lightburst (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
34. Support, per my support in the previous RfA of the candidate. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
35. Support A good candidate with great experience and a positive attitude to edit. The person who loves reading (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
36. For the same reasons as last time. --JBL (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
37. Support. This is groundhog day. My comment from last time still applies. If there's a comment on this RfA page that shows why the candidate has a poor temperament, mistake-prone track record or complete cluelessness then it's been buried under a nothingburger. I don't care about the optics of running or whether the candidate has denigrated themselves to being obsequious to the fickle whims of RfA for a week. I care about whether they can be trusted to ask questions first and shoot later. Many of our best admins are most active in an area they did not mention in their RfA, or were elected before RfA was a bigger deal than double checking "this user is clearly not a vandal, troll or CIR case". — Bilorv (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
38. Support. I have positive memories of the user when I have seen their username. My own criteria for adminship is that they're very unlikely to do anything clearly or subtly abusive, are willing to learn, and are experienced "enough" (where "enough" is vague but well-under what most people seem to want). They may not jump as prolific as some recent new admins but they will, I think, be a net positive and potentially grow into such an admin. RfA being able to select editors who are on the lower level of acceptable activity/experience (for admins) and help them grown as admins while admins would be a net positive for the project. Skynxnex (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
39. Support – experienced enough to know their way around policy, trustworthy, no particular concerns. Adminship is a set of tools, not a commission, and I don't see any problem with wanting it simply to help out wherever they happen upon. That is more or less the model Wikipedia editing is based on. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
40. Support Although I really don't see this RfA closing as successful, I feel he's trustworthy and is motivated to learn. I've looked through his edit history, including interactions with other Wikipedians. His edit count is (relatively) low for an Admin candidate and less than 50% of his edits are in the mainspace, I still feel the project would have a net gain. Although he said that he "doesn't need the tools," I think he was referring to a lot of the janitorial stuff (in general). It's kind of like: you don't need shoes to run a marathon, but it definitely helps. If, by chance, the tide turns and he is provided with the buttons, I feel that he would be a net asset to the project. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 20:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
41. Support per willingness to help in admin areas and experience. Indy208 (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
42. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The candidate has no rational explanation of why they want to be an admin, why they should be an admin, or what they would do, if anything, with admin tools. This is just hat collecting. Mops should not be handed out for the asking. Banks Irk (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose for now; just TOO SOON from last RfC. Let's see some more from you first. GenQuest ^"scribble" 00:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Banks Irk said it perfectly just above. Adminship is not a lark, and is not "no big deal" despite the fact that back in 2003 and prior, it was said by Jimbo to be since Wikipedia was still in its very early growth phase and adminship was a new privilege. To the candidate: Come back when you have a real need and rationale for wanting the tools. 'Too many RFAs have failed lately' is not a reason. And don't come back in less than a year. And let someone else nominate you. And don't tell us about your real life. Also, in my opinion the edit count is very low for an admin candidate -- I like candidates to have at least 20,000 edits. Softlavender (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
4. I've mainly been staying out of RfA of late — less active and don't recognize the names — but upon reading this nomination statement I think the candidate gives reason enough to oppose. The statement, especially the last part where he misrepresents the community's last RfC on this topic, reads like someone who thinks they are owed adminship. The community did not unanimously decide that no need wasn't a valid reason to oppose; read the RfC. The community unanimously decided to change the wording of the first question. The community has never decided that there was invalid rationale at an RfA, nor has the community decided that there are invalid rationales at any open ended discussion where policy is unclear (i.e. policy and guideline RfCs.) From a practical standpoint, that's an issue because as an admin any close they have will have added weight, and it shows they don't understand how project-wide consensus works - it can change, and when assessing closes, administrators should weight reasonable positions that are not clearly outlandish. Completely dismissing what has historically been viewed as a reasonable point of view by the community, even if a controversial one, and misrepresenting the RfC they were linking to is not a good sign here, especially when factoring in the fact that consensus can change and it is the community at RfA that determines what a reasonable objection is.
   As a whole, this goes towards my overall read of the nominating statement and responses that they feel they are owed adminship and are using community concern about unbundling and declining admin numbers from a policy perspective as a way to get the tools. That is a red flag for me because ultimately we are custodians of the project on behalf of the community, and are not owed anything, much less is anyone guaranteed to have the trust of the community when running for RfA. Yes - they're trying to break the norms with a self-nom, but this is where you put on your best face. If that is the approach they take to RfA, I do not want to see the approach they'll take to being an admin.
   Before I get the responses to my oppose that I'm not stating a valid reason or I'm not being fair to the candidate, let me address those directly — RfA is about community trust. There are various factors that go into that trust, and part of it is the way they approach the project and how they view their role in it. These are not factors that can be diff'd as policy violations like CSD criteria, but they are soft factors that play a role in whether or not we think someone should be an administrator. For the reasons I set out above, I do not trust Shushugah to be an administrator, and so I land here opposing. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
5. Oppose The candidate does not yet have the experience that I would like to see in an admin. Their AFD stats are a bit concerning, and based on the candidate's statement of areas they would like to work, it doesn't seem that having the tools are warranted.   ArcAngel   (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
6. Oppose I used to agree that adminiship was no big deal. Nowadays, I'm afraid that such a perspective oversimplifies the realities of doing administrative work on one of the world's most important websites. As the number of active admins continues to dwindle, it is true that we need to get some fresh blood in the ranks. However, I'm not comfortable giving the sysop title to someone who doesn't recognize that it is in fact a big deal. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
7. Oppose I previously !voted neutral but, upon reading TonyBallioni's convincing oppose which I highly agree with, I also find myself in the oppose section. I respect the work that Shushugah does for Wikipedia, but I do not think they have demonstrated a good reason and experience to trust them with administrative tools at this time. echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
8. Oppose for the exact same reason as last time. Virtually nothing has changed during the intervening months between this RfA and the previous one. -FASTILY 01:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
9. Oppose Gonna have to oppose on this one. Given the candidate doesn't seem to provide any reasons they should have admin tools or how they would use said tools, I see literally no reason to give them. The decline in admins is concerning, but admins who don't do "admin-ing" doesn't solve anything. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
10. Oppose as hat collecting. There should be a need for a tool not just something to add to the collection. Unless there is a demonstrated need for a permission, it shouldn't be granted. Noah^Talk 02:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
11. Oppose the issues raised in the previous RfA still haven't been addressed. For example, Shushugah has stated they would work at WP:RPP, but they've only made one edit to that page in the last year, and only have a few RPP requests overall, which makes it difficult to assess their knowledge of relevant policy. The self-nomination is also not very confidence-inducing; TonyBallioni puts it very nicely above. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 02:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
12. Oppose - I agree with nearly all of the opposers above. If the candidate wishes to try again after addressing the concerns listed, all well and good. But give it a full year, and I'd recommend a good nominator for a third try. Jusdafax (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
13. Oppose - Primarily per Tony Ballioni, but also, there's no way an editor registered in mid-2015 with under 8,000 edits has had enough experience to be an administrator, which is a big deal, no matter how many times it is claimed not to be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
14. Oppose I am always hesitant to oppose. I remember running, and while I understand that the opposes were in good faith, it was certainly not fun reading them. But regretfully I must do so here. Let me begin by noting that I disagree with the idea that a low edit count is disqualifying. I think an admin could and should run with less than 10k edits. But they would need to be a sterling candidate. Unfortunately, Shushugah's approach raises too many red flags to ignore. He runs without nominators. I agree with Barkeep's musings below that RfA should be less stressful, and I have applauded his running of unusual candidates. But I must further agree that running without nominators is unorthodox. To run without nominators also requires a sterling candidate. But to run on a low edit count and without nominators, that requires a candidate of the highest degree. Unfortunately, Shushugah does not live up to the standard he has set for himself. This is made clear by the very first paragraph of Shushugah's self nom. It ends with a bold policy claim: Either we need more admins or debundling of admin tools, or boldly acknowledge that we don't need more admins. which gives the impression that this run is a political statement. I.e. if he loses, it is because the system is wrong and needs reform, not him. This is made even more clear by his answer to Q1 being effectively the same as that statement. Further, I find Shushugah's approach to be generally incompatible with adminship. Reading the answers to his questions, I get the sense that he is stubborn, and feels almost entitled to adminship. He does not express a willingness to learn, to change, to grow. Oh certainly, he has taken on some constructive criticism, but it seems as if he begrudges the community for it. This is amplified by this run coming so soon after the last one. Seven months is not very long on Wikipedia. I do applaud his two GA's, and that made me think very hard about this oppose. But overall, I find that the issues raised are simply too great to meet that "double sterling standard" that Shushugah has set for himself here. We need more admins. But the answer is not to lower our standards. The norms at RfA have multiplied over the years because, as Barkeep sagely notes, they are the result of lessons learned at great pain to the community. Ultimately, I am afraid that Shushugah has shown a disregard for the community's norms—in just too many ways to qualify for a role whose very job is knowing and enforcing those norms. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
15. Oppose per answers to questions 1 and 4. Admins have big powers and the possession of them IS a big deal (if it wasn't a big deal, we’d just hand them out to anyone who asked, not go through this process every time). A bad admin decision can have much bigger repercussions than having an article locked for a short spell - they can do great damage to morale of users and divide the community, and when an admin makes a poor decision, the added kerfuffle at ANI and ArbCom just isn't worth the grief for a poor decision early on. My !vote is in no way based on you being a self-nom: I don't see that as a negative point and I wish more candidates did so, after they had taken soundings from more long-standing and wiser heads. - SchroCat (talk) 06:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
16. Oppose not enough edits. zoglophie 06:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
17. Oppose - Candidate themself claims no need for tools. This second nomination, as explained by better writers above, indicates editor is not ready or understanding of adminship. I encourage them to try again in two years. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 09:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
18. Oppose. This candidate appears to have a long journey ahead. Do appreciate the obvious willingness; however, I guess I've always thought of adminship as being akin to my lifelong profession. In that, a professional license is considered a privilege, not a right. Same goes for the mop. This present moment, sadly but with hope for the future, must decline to support. And since I don't like to stand in the middle of the road and get squished, must oppose. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 11:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
19. Oppose. The candidate needs more experience before being granted admin privileges. Furthermore, they show no reasons for needing administrative tools as the others have stated before me. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 12:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
20. Oppose - The candidate themselves have stated that they don't really need the tools for anything, so I'll oppose per WP:HATSHOP. -- Grapefanatic (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
21. Oppose I can greatly appreciate the pushing for changes in Wikipedia norms and status quo. I think the candidate has a good head on their shoulders and a good attitude toward WP, and their boldness and openness about their strengths and weaknesses is quite refreshing to see. But I think they are leaning too hard on these qualities to bolster what I perceive as a lack of need. Edit counts aside, inconsistent activity aside, I'm not convinced that Shushugah has need of the bucket and mop. SchroCat made a home-run of a first question that I can only assume was on the mind of most editors reading the nom, and even with a second chance to answer the candidate hasn't convinced me that they have a real need for the tools. I can appreciate the nobody needs tools because nobody needs to edit argument, it's simple, digestible, and quaint. But it's ultimately meaningless because a more specific version of Why do you need... is What do you intend to do with admin tools and how do you plan to use them. The candidate has indeed expressed where they expect to start using the tools in answering Q6, but I'm not inspired with confidence at seeing enjoy the daily stream of questions at the different Village pumps with such prominence. This is a very helpful task, but this and many other soft factors (well spoken Tony) give me the feeling that this RfA isn't as much about admin tools as it is about perceived admin authority (or alternatively HATSHOPping.) GabberFlasted (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
22. Oppose While I doubt the intentions are anything but good here, I would personally like to see a candidate be clear about why exactly they want to become an admin. What's the point of being an admin if you aren't gonna make use of the tools? I agree with some of the points raised though, including adminship not being a big deal, but it also shouldn't be something you become just for the sake of it. --TylerBurden (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
23. Q9 is a total deal breaker. Someone with 7k edits wants a lifetime appointment to explore admin tools? Hell no. We don't need more admins and it is a big enough deal to want to see some kind of assurance that a candidate knows what they're doing before we give them the lifetime bit. If Q9 had been a yes, I'd have supported. The answer, though, which addresses only the politics of the choice without the substance, is what prompted me to oppose. Levivich (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

    Also the line "I wished I had been able to fixed the issue there and then, and have another admin review it as presumably all logg'ed admin activity are" frightens me, the idea that an admin would take some action (revdel'ing) on the (very wrong) assumption that all logged admin activity is reviewed (by whom?!). Levivich (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

    I was not referring to any formal review process, but that there exists a technical audit log for certain admin (amongst other) activity, e.g Special:Log. I wrote presumably since I do not know all the admin bits and their logging (if any) but it appears I am wrong and there is no logging of REVDEL actions by respective admins? Wikipedia:Revision deletion § Overview of RevisionDelete refers to a peer-review process, which I presumed was some kind of technical audit log.

    You have also recently shown in this edit abuse of tools can happen in plain site unaddressed for many years, which is not an issue of technical audit logs, but human will/capacity to read the warning bells. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

    Here is the RevisionDelete log. Levivich (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

24. Oppose "Users in my previous RfA lamented my lack of stated reasons for needing tools, but I still do not believe I need them." really says it all to me, and I'm someone generally skeptical of "no need for the tools" opposes! I expect to see at least some sort of idea as to where a RfA candidate would like to exercise admin duties, but I really do not see that here. It almost sounds like you don't want adminship, honestly... I find TonyBallioni's and CaptainEek's opposes convincing, as well. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
25. Oppose for most of the reasons listed above. If the candidate can't even explain why they need the tools, they likely don't need the tools. I'm also not seeing the level of clarity I'd expect from an admin in most of their answers to the questions posted. Intothatdarkness 15:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
26. Oppose - If you don't need the tools—and you can't explain your desire beyond "go look at my previous nom for more info"—then you don't need to be an admin. -- Veggies (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
27. Oppose Dissatisfied with the answer to Q1. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
28. Oppose - As stated above, being an admin means using the tools. Admins get desysoped for "inactivity" - that means, they haven't been using the tools. So, if you don't want the tools, there's no point in your being an admin. I think you don't understand what the tools do. And that indicates you don't really know what admins do. — Maile (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
29. Oppose. I broadly agree with the opposes of TonyBallioni and CaptainEek, though I'm not convinced by the edit count argument. But more importantly, what I'm seeing here is a candidate that's rejecting input from the community. In the previous RfA, reasons for opposition included: that the candidate did not indicate how they would use the tools, that they have inconsistent and low activity, that they have minimal experience in admin-related areas, and that they had unhelpful/noncommittal answers to the RfA questions. Not only are these still issues that cast doubt on adminship, but the fact that these are still issues—and that the candidate re-self-nominated while these are still issues—indicates that the candidate is not adjusting their behavior based on community input, which is completely disqualifying for adminship. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
30. Oppose. I do think it's been too soon since the last RfA, and I do worry about the activity slumps and streaks (not that I have a ton of room to talk on that front as an editor). My main concern, however, has to do with the unsatisfactory answers to Q1 and Q4. While it is true that "need for the tools" hasn't been the best assessment method for potential administrators, when it comes to the RfA process specifically, we're asking for a good deal of trust in a member of the community. By having a solid idea of the areas in which they intend to work, we can measure against their current activity. Right now, it's hard to gauge how the candidate would perform as an administrator because there isn't much of a track record to go off of. — GhostRiver 17:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
31. Oppose per others. "I want to be an admin because there are not enough admins" is not a satisfactory reason (to me) of why Shushugah should be given the admin tools. They have not provided a reason for what they plan to do with the admin tools. Natg 19 (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
32. oppose answer to Q1 is not good--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
33. Oppose per the above discussion, but primarily per TonyBallioni. I find the answers to Q1 and Q4 to be odd and there is not a clear reason on why they should be an admin. I also agree with Levivich in that I also am not a fan to the response to Q9. Aoba47 (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
34. Oppose. Q1 was unsatisfying for me; Q6 exacerbates this. It comes off to me as if the candidate is running for admin for the sake of being an admin or continuing the admin inflow. Q4 doesn't give me confidence that there will be actual lasting work in adminstrative areas besides testing the waters, and Q6 gives a reason for adminship that would be well possible even without the mop. I didn't see the same conviction in the areas where the candidate would work in in Q4 as they did in their last nom. I do appreciate the enthusiasm but, frankly, another admin who doesn't use the extra tools provided to them wouldn't help address the main reason why we need more admins. As someone with technical background, I'm more predisposed to apply the principle of least privilege and, considering the answer to Q9 and our lack of a proper recall process (which the candidate did also mention), I am less inclined to trust the user in continued use of the tools outside of trying out tooling. But as for the edit count, this doesn't concern me at all. Nonetheless, I'm regretfully opposing (a rarity for me), with no prejudice to a future run when the candidate has a stronger conviction on what area they intend to use their tools in. Chlod (say hi!) 19:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
35. Oppose. The candidate not only freely admits they have no need of the tools, they attempt to spin this as a positive. I feel like if the candidate wants to reduce the "big deal-ness" of being an admin that this isn't the vehicle by which to pursue that- they should start an RFC with a formal, well written proposal. 331dot (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
36. Oppose. I rarely vote at RfAs, but I don't remember ever reading so many awful answers to questions; each one makes me cringe.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
37. No substantial change from the previous RfA. ansh.666 20:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
38. Oppose - as per last AFD, too soon. GiantSnowman 21:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
39. Oppose per WP:NQY. Concerns raised by their answer to Q1. See also the excellent comment by TonyBallioni. That really did come across as "I'm entitled to it." And some of their answers to other questions look really weak. Q4 was basically an opportunity to try again on Q1 and did no better. Beyond that, I am concerned about their overall level of experience which doesn't really ring the bell for what typically look for in an RfA. I do appreciate their obvious good will and positive contributions to the project. But I am not comfortable with this candidacy right now. Given the current math I would encourage them to withdraw as dragging out what is almost certainly going to be an unsuccessful RfA can leave a bad taste that some people might remember in a future try. My only other piece of advice, beyond try not get discouraged, would be to wait, at a bare minimum a full year before considering another run. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
40. Oppose- I believe "no real reason to have the tools" to be troubling. Agree with many here that perhaps a wait of a year or two would be of benefit.   Aloha27  talk  23:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
41. Oppose Mainly because of lack of experience. I also disagree with the candidate that adminship is no big deal and that a need for the tools is unimportant. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
42. Oppose - "I still do not believe I need them" - If you believe you don't need the mop, then you don't need the mop. --Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 23:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Still neutral, sorry. You speak of your work at GA: as far as I can see, you have done two reviews since your last RfA, and the one directly before was a WP:DCGAR, which isn't the best look. Your GAs aren't the worst I've seen, but seem to suffer from MOS:OVERSECTION and possibly WP:BIAS (Apple worker organizations seems to suffer from both: on that note, if it is truly neutral, it would be far better sectioned as "Industrial composition", "United States" and "Elsewhere"). As RfA is a matter of trust, I cannot say that I would fully trust you to act in the content areas I work in, or that I would trust you with tools in policy/technical areas both you and I have little knowledge of. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

   I'm going neutral for a bit of an odd reason. My encounters with the user have been pleasant and normally I would be in full support, however I'm neutral because of this weird reason: they only have 7k edits. Yes I know an edit count isn't everything, however I myself would like to see an admin with at least 10k edits before they nominate themself as to me that says that they are someone who knows what they are doing and are going to be fairly active in the community. If the nominator or another editor can convince me that their edit count shouldn't be that big of a concern then I am willing to go full support as this is a weak neutral. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

   I think the serious section of WP:EDITCOUNTITIS has a number of reasons an edit count shouldn't be a concern: "The problems with using edit counts to measure relative level of experience are that it does not take into account that users could have an extensive edit history prior to registering an account (posting anonymously), and that major and minor edits are counted equally, regardless of whether the edit is a typo fix, or the creation of a full article." Quality, not quantity. See also Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions § Editcountitis. HouseBlaster^talk 23:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

   Fair point. I supposed I was overthinking this. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

   Changing to support. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

   Upon further consideration I"m going to go back to neutral but for a different reason. Will post as a new neutral !vote. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

   Neutral I am against opposing for lack of need for the tools, but I'd like to see the candidate have a general idea of what they want to do. If you don't state what you intend to work on, how can voters know what to judge you on? I understand the candidate's stance on this, but I would encourage them to give a bit of insight into what they want to do as an admin. Will consider moving following more answers to questions. echidnaLives - talk - edits 23:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

   I highly agree with the opposing rationale given by TonyBallioni and, with respect to the candidate, I am moving to oppose. echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

2. Neutral I was neutral but due to WP:EDITCOUNTITIS so I was going to change to support, however upon further consideration I"m going to remain neutral. I do see the reasonings in the Opposes as perfectly valid, however from my experience with them I believe that with a little more experience they'd make a great admin. But with their limited experience now I cannot be in support of this user. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
3. Neutral I want you to ask yourself why you're here. I, too, agree that "no need for the tools" is a bad reason to oppose an RfA, but I think that's because there's always stuff for admins to do. A 'need' for permissions can't always be demonstrated by edit history, like if for example you're interested in handling unblock requests (for some reason), but you've said yourself that if you become admin, you're not gonna do anything with it. Your answer to main question 1 boils down to "I should've gotten it last time". That's not a reason you want to be administrator, that's just a reason you don't have administrator. I think that the community in general needs to be a little more lax on the experience requirements for admins, and that you are perfectly qualified. Come back at your next RfA and make it clear that you are becoming an administrator to become an administrator, and I'll support, but right now, I feel the sole purpose of this RfA is just to make a point.
   

   PS: 100% agree with your answer to optional question 9 by the way. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

4. Neutral, while I applaud the candidate's openness in their statement, and acceptance of mistakes (which everyone makes), I can't shrug off the feeling of some opposes that a point is trying to be made after the last request. The idea of this not being a big deal disappeared many years ago - the responsibilities associated with the toolkit mean that candidates are rightly scrutinised. The answer to Q1 is weak and no clear reason for needing or wishing to have the toolkit is offered, though fair enough for being honest about this fact. It does feel a bit like "I'm able to ask for it, so I will". With that said, I can't see any red flags if this were successful. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

General comments

• For me the whole point of RfA is to see if I can trust the admin. Period. That is the whole ballgame. And for me part of what I need in order to trust a candidate is an understanding of not only our wirtten policies and guidelines but also our procedures and customs. Some stuff works because of norms and the process of formalizing some norms, like ArbCom establishing that WP:WHEEL is grounds for quick desysop, came at great pains to the community so I'd rather those norms be observed and followed rather than broken and forced to become written. With many of my nominations I attempt to push at what the conventional wisdom of RfA is and so I certainly don't begrudge an editor doing so and indeed welcome someone else doing so. In fact I noted at Shushugah's first RfA that I welcomed them being the change they wanted to see. But what I don't know is if they're wisely and knowingly pushing at boundries that have become entrenched but shouldn't be or if they don't know what they don't know. If they're knowingly pushing at boundaries I'm inclined to support. If they don't know what they don't know... Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Either I "don't know what I don't know" and shouldn't be an admin, or you should consider dumbing this down some, because I do not understand what you're getting at. At all. Are you ... being intentionally vague as a challenge to see if Shushugah passes some test? Or do you want to explain a little more? Floquenbeam (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Based on your question - which I just noticed - it looks like it's the former? Floquenbeam (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  I am sorry you don't understand Floq. Can you be more specific about what you don't understand so I can clarify? The good news is based on his comment to John in answer 5, Shushugah did understand me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  "But what I don't know is if they're wisely and knowingly pushing at boundaries that have become entrenched but shouldn't be..." I don't know what boundaries you mean. Just the fact that it's a self-nom? (I wouldn't have guessed even that if Shushugah hadn't guessed that first) The fact that he's only got 7400+ edits? But he specifically mentioned that, so I don't see how that would be something you don't know if he knows. I guess you're asking if he knows all the ways he is an unconventional candidate? Floquenbeam (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Floq, you are actually an excellent example of an admin who knows where the boundaries are and can make strategic choices about when to respect them and when not to. You knew that you were breaking the boundaries here and you knew all the norms (today) to do this without any criticism/pushback that I've seen. Here at RfA, Shushugah has violated several norms. I don't agree with most of the norms I see him breaking and so I'm reluctant to name them as it might give them credibility or influence by people who do support them but 3 examples of norms he's broken are number of edits when RfA'ing, how long he waited between RfA 1 and 2, and not having a nom. Since I don't like most of these things, I'm not bothered by him breaking them and in fact am excited to potentially have the chance to show that they don't actually have the community support many presuppose. But I also don't want admin who will suck up precious community attention by creating drama themselves. If Shushugah is threading this needle with skill rather than luck and the good faith of editors here then it shows, to quote TNT's support, that he has a clue and I would be excited to support him. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  +1 to this The Night Watch (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  That's nice of you to say (I wasn't fishing for compliments!) I guess I've nothing more to say, thanks for in-depth replies. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

---

• TonyBallioni, you argue that The community did not unanimously decide that no need wasn't a valid reason to oppose; read the RfC. The community unanimously decided to change the wording of the first question.. Isn't Shushugah referring to something else? You're referring to point 1 of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review#Changes, which details the change of Revision of standard question 1 to "Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?". But Shushugah's statement seems to be more aligned towards the problem the RfC identified in phase 1, which says "No need for the tools" is a poor reason [to oppose at RfA] as we can find work for new admins. Should the 'crats not honour the community's clear consensus in phase 1? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
  • My oppose was based on the fact that he misrepresented it as being something unanimously rejected by the community - thats not what it was, and that is also not what the consensus was. I did not oppose on having no need for the tools — I opposed because the nomination statement reads like someone who thinks they are entitled to them, and the way they portray that RfC and the surroundings is part of that.
    Without getting too off-topic, but the average controversial RfA that is in the discretionary range has more opposes than that specific point had supporters (24, for the record. If this RfA continues at the current pace, it will have more opposers than that tomorrow.) Consensus can change, and RfA is a community-wide discussion that is advertised widely. If more people in one RfA oppose on those grounds than attended the discussion that says its weak grounds to oppose, thats an indication that either consensus has changed or that it was never a true consensus to begin with.
    Anyway — to my original point — all of this goes to the fact that being an administrator is about understanding community norms and understanding that consensus develops overtime and is not static. Citing a 2 year-old discussion as a reason to discount the votes of people who are going to oppose, even before they have done so, shows a lack of understanding of the fact that if the community wants to, it can create a consensus in this very discussion that "no need for the tools" is a valid reason to oppose this candidate. We are not bound by 24 people 2 years ago, and if enough people agree, that becomes the community consensus for this RfA. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• +1 - SchroCat (talk) 06:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Agree! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 11:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• I don't know the candidate beyond what I've read here, so I don't feel qualified to vote. But I do want to comment on one of their disclosures: I work in several contentious areas of Wikipedia ... I would refrain from using admin tools in these areas, except where explicitly allowed exceptions of WP:INVOLVED .. an action that should be patently clear/necessary to any other admins. I take a conservative view of INVOLVED, and would urge all admins to do likewise. It's pretty much impossible to step back far enough from controversy to make a truly dispassionate evaluation of what other admins would do. And if it really is a case of vandalism which is so patently obvious that any other admin would instantly recognize it as such, then there's no need for you to act. The most important phrase in your admin guidebook should be, "Could somebody else please take a look at...". Dropped into WP:ANI, it'll get lots of other eyes on the problem quickly, and if the issue really is as obvious as you think it is, it'll get handled just as fast. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2023 (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.