Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vacant0

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Vacant0

edit

Final: (184/1/5) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 07:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)reply

Monitors: theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)

Nomination

edit

Vacant0 (talk · contribs) – Fellow editors, I'm very happy to introduce Vacant0 as a candidate for adminship. I have been aware of Vacant's contributions for a while. They have been a prolific content creator for many years, with three featured articles and 65(!) good articles. These cover a wide range of subjects, from video games to software to food, as well as careful work on numerous articles related to Serbian politics. Their ability to maintain their calm and produce neutral writing in this perennially troublesome area showcase exactly the skills and temperament we like to see in administrators. They are a frequent contributor to ITN, where they can make good use of the tools, and as a content-focused editor they will be able to ease into working at DYK, AIV, and RFPP quite easily. In our interactions Vacant has been reflective and very open to critique, also essential traits in an admin. I hope you agree that they'll be an asset to the admin corps.

PS: Vacant had a prior account that made exactly 6 edits well before this account was active. Schwede and I have both reviewed these and see nothing of concern. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2026 (UTC)reply

Co-nomination statement
edit

It is my pleasure to support Vacant0’s RfA; they also go by Rie. Since late 2020, they’ve been a steady editor with just under 50,000 edits. Rie focusses on content creation and has dozens of DYKs and GAs, plus three FAs. I often see them at ITN on the candidate nomination page, where they have a good handle on assessing whether articles meet the ITN criteria. Given their steadiness, I would appreciate them joining the admin corps and thus helping with the ITN main page work.

Rie has a good AfD match rate at 88%. Looking at the votes (or nominations) where the outcome didn't match, I did not spot anything of concern. Looking through their talk page history shows good conduct in interacting with other editors.

All in all, Rie is more than ready to pick up the tools. I hope you will join me in supporting their RfA. Schwede66 22:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)reply

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. I have never edited for pay. I previously edited under a different account in February 2019 on which I've made six edits in total.

Questions for the candidate

edit

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: As a content-leaning administrator, I’d start in areas that I could say I’m already comfortable with, such as ITN and DYK (incl. Main Page errors). These would be my main areas of work - but I’ll also occasionally chip in at AIV and RfPP. I have considerable experience when talking about neutrality, bias, and copyright, as well as determining which sources are reliable or not. Now… what about areas that I’m not really experienced in? Well, I’d first involve myself as a regular user and learn from those that are more experienced than me. I should also note that, as an admin, I would not involve myself in areas that I have experience with, administratively speaking. These areas include: Serbian politics (which I’m the major contributor to) and Yugoslav Wars (which I have less experience with, but I’ve contributed to a few articles here and there). Now… I’m not perfect. I do not pretend to be perfect. I might make mistakes even as an administrator, but if you talk to me about it I will always be receptive.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: A brief look at my user page will show you that I’ve done a lot of content stuff and in many different areas. I’m proud of all of my Featured Articles, Good Articles, DYKs, and ITN contributions. But which ones do I consider to be the best ones? From a quality perspective, my best contributions are my FAs. Lego Indiana Jones: The Original Adventures is a game that I used to play a lot in the late 2000s and early 2010s; when working on the article, I was astonished how much content there is about this, arguably one of the best Lego video games. This article and Terraria had actually taught me how to write good prose. My political GAs taught me how to go through controversial areas while maintaining NPOV. I’m also quite proud of the Good Article Gazette, which I have maintained since last summer!
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: I think that anyone who actually truly wants to improve Wikipedia will have something of value to say, even if they’re going about it badly. Therefore, I have always tried to remain calm while editing and discuss my way out of disputes. However, there have been occasions when I didn’t succeed but I’m learning to do better. Early on in my wiki career, in October 2020, I got a stern warning for edit-warring. I crapped myself when I saw it, so I jumped to the talk page. It served me a good lesson. I’ve since tried sticking with this principle (I have over 7,000 edits on talk pages alone), except for one case in December 2023, which I deeply regret (honestly, an admin should have blocked me there, but I guess that the article was not really monitored by admins). Talk page, talk page, talk page… it exists for a reason. What have others done to me? Well, in 99% cases they’ve been nice, polite, and cooperative. If you ask me, this is a must do on Wikipedia. After all, it is a collaborative project. However, there’s also this 1%, which I think everyone should have experienced here by now. I've been called an autist (yes, I’m autistic but the word autist was used in a negative manner) and I was told to kill myself on a talk page of an article I filled at AfD. When I usually feel distressed, I don’t stay on Wikipedia and express my anger - I instead step back. I think that it’s better that way instead of arguing with other editors.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions are disallowed, but you are allowed to ask follow-up questions related to previous questions. Make sure to use level-five section headers, not boldface.

Optional question from Sapphaline
edit
4. What are your best non-mainspace contributions?
A: I could think of few. I’m proud of my contributions to ITN - as of now, I have more than 500 contributions to that part alone and have brought 55 articles to the Main Page. I also run the Good Article Gazette, which I established last summer and which has garnered quite a following (with minimal marketing or promotion, it is not even featured in the GA topbar, for now). I’ve also coordinated three GAN backlog drives in 2024 and 2025, which was quite difficult as someone who has never done that type of work before. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
Optional question from voorts
edit
5. What is your response to the recent criticisms of how consensus is determined at ITN?
A: I’ll try to keep this as short as possible (but it’s a complaint about ITN… how can that stay short?). I think it’s valid to criticise any aspects of Wikipedia, especially ITN - which has flaws that the community should concentrate on fixing. There’s a lot of examples I could give to you - but I’ll stick to a few.
When a death blurb is nominated, I follow Masem’s approach - I want to see a Legacy section that explains if the person was well known for what they were doing. This section is usually easy to write for well-known figures (politicians, actors, musicians etc., especially when they get obituaries), maybe a bit harder for obscure ones. I’m sorry to say this, but most votes in these cases do not address this issue but are rather based on OR personal opinions (which to me, are irrelevant, we should rather look at what RS say instead). A recent example of this is the Valentino nom, which as of writing is still on the Main Page despite not having a section which explains how this person was influential. People should stick to following WP:ITNATA and as an admin I’ll happily lead the reform of this voting system and expand WP:ITNATA with more arguments. Another thing when talking about death blurbs - I think that we should also consider posting “unexpected deaths” for well-known figures i.e. Charlie Kirk’s death.
I’ll give out another example. A common issue I also see with news is that “but [insert news topic] is also featured in [insert international media name(s)]”! Well, what is not featured in the news today internationally is a better question. I read Serbian news all the time and I can tell you that even Renee Good protests were featured here , even though it was rejected at ITN for various reasons (often, you would see American news get rejected for being Americacentric, which is contrary to WP:ITNATA).
When talking about protests, for example, I think that we should primarily base our opinions on whether RS consider them to have made an impact on a national or a regional level, rather than worldwide impact. For example, the Serbian student protests, ongoing since 2024, were blurbed only once (!) even though they did not make a worldwide impact, but rather a huge national and regional one.
Therefore, admins should be more careful when posting news like this which are not covered under WP:ITN/R. As I’ve already said, I’d happily pursue reforms of ITN which will invalidate OR votes, so that participants will strongly consider following WP:ITNATA. I feel like there's more stuff to add in regards to this but these issues have spotted my eye over the past year.
A follow up question RE: People should stick to following WP:ITNATA and as an admin I’ll happily lead the reform of this voting system and expand WP:ITNATA with more arguments. When consensus is being evaluated, closers are supposed to discard arguments not grounded in PAGs. When closing ITN discussions, will you discard the OR/personal opinion-type arguments you've identified or will you give them equal weight to valid arguments like most ITN closers seem to do? voorts (talk/contributions) 16:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)reply
I’d personally weigh only votes that are based on PAGs and RS, as well as common sense. I don’t care how many votes there are in support/oppose as Wikipedia is not a democracy (IMO, e.g. if there is a 3:1 ratio I personally think that those who are in the minority could still get advantage if their votes are grounded in PAGs and RS). I think that ITN admins should also consider following in the future, especially those that are in favour of reforming the current ITN system.
Optional questions from Chorchapu
edit
6. Expanding on what Voorts said just above, how do you feel about the recent RD blurbs/OLDMANDIES controversy at ITN recently?
A: I’d have to correct you - this is not “recent” but has been instead ongoing for several years (maybe even longer, I did not look into discussions before I became active at ITN). I basically think that we need to establish stricter rules regarding RD blurbs. As I’ve already said, I follow the approach of wanting to see a Legacy section in the article for well-known figures. For “unusual/unexpected deaths” I also think that we could make an exception if the person was either well-known or the death was just purely tragic. I’d expect strong arguments from both sides during these discussions. I do not think that we should blurb everyone who dies of old age, but if the person was well-known back 50 to 70 years ago, they died at an old age, and have a Legacy section – then I do not see anything that would stop them from being featured at ITN.
7. How do you feel about the RfC and editors' responses in general relating to this debate?
A: I did not vote in the RfC, but if I did, I’d oppose its removal. As long as the current system is maintained, I think that it’s important to have death blurbs for people whose Legacy section explains why they were a prominent figure in their area. If we are going to change something at ITN, I think that we should change how the entire thing functions, not just a small broken part of it. I’m not convinced by the support votes but I see a good proposal by one of the editors who voted in favour – neutralise all RDs by having a system like on de.wiki.
Optional question from Daniel Case
edit
8. This seems to be the new obligatory question at RFAs, more for the sake of understanding how candidates see the process rather than determining our !votes: What made you decide on RfA rather than running in one of the elections?
A: Hi Daniel! Long time no see. I think that the creation of AELECT was a great decision and I fully support holding future elections. The reason why I chose going the traditional way is purely because I wanted to experience the way it is. I specifically wanted to run somewhere during Q1 of 2026 (the preparation already started back in August and I did not want to run in the AELECT).
Optional question from theleekycauldron
edit
9. Writing in as a monitor to make sure the procedural boxes have been ticked – historically, candidates disclose their alternate accounts as required by WP:ADMIN encouraged by WP:CLEANSTART (see comment below) to either the community or the Arbitration Committee, not just the nominators. Do you plan to disclose the account?
A: Yeah, I'll disclose it to the ArbCom whenever I have to. Upon further reflection, I think I misunderstood your question. I wasn't aware of this requirement. If that's something that I have to declare with ArbCom, I'll do so pronto. I've already disclosed my previous account to my nominators.
Optional question from JuniperChill
edit
10. What video game article have you spent the longest time improving?
A: It usually does not take me a long time to write a video game article, as it is pretty easy to find sources for games nowadays. I think that this record goes to Lego Indiana Jones: The Original Adventures, on which I've worked between 30 August and 12 September 2024. From what I remember, Terraria also took some time to write. I started it on 6 March and finished it on 13 March 2025. It was pretty fun writing articles about games that I've basically played since they came out.
Optional question from Staraction
edit
11. On your userpage, you write, I strongly oppose the use of large language models on Wikipedia, even if it might be helpful to some. Is this a blanket statement regarding all LLM use? If so, would you support policy proposals to restrict its use?
A: LLMs are an evolving issue on Wikipedia. But, my personal opinion is the following: LLMs such as GPTs can sometimes be useful in real-life situations, though I still personally prefer going the traditional way. I’ve certainly used ChatGPT in some circumstances and have found it to be sometimes helpful. But regarding Wikipedia? I strongly avoid using it. When researching, I prefer doing it manually - checking Google Books, offline books, Google Scholar, TWL, Internet Archive, online newspapers etc. ChatGPT (and other GPTs) can be useful in this case as they’ll research stuff that you tell them to do. But… they can also just make stuff up sometimes - which, when researching manually, does not happen! Another thing - copyediting. I prefer doing it manually or I just ask others to do it instead of me (I am not a native English speaker so I can sometimes make mistakes or just not notice some things). I assume good faith in others, so I assume that they do not use ChatGPT for copyediting.
We already have some PAGs on LLMs - WP:NEWLLM goes over the creation of new articles with LLMs; I strongly support this guideline, though I’d like to see it expanded. WP:AIIMAGES and WP:AIIMGBLP also go over AI-generated images. Would I support restricting the usage of LLMs? Most likely yes. I think that Wikipedia should stay as it was before these things popped up back in 2022/2023. I could see copyediting with ChatGPT to be useful. As I’m not an expert on this topic, I’d rather see what others have to say before me. But, I’d still generally support stricter policies to keep Wikipedia as natural as possible.
Optional question from DS
edit
12. Under what circumstances would you leave a personalized message for a new user, as opposed to a boilerplate one?
A: I usually leave the {{welcoming}} template to most users who are new/I see make useful contributions as I personally think it’s the best one. The user can read some useful tips and important pages (how to edit, PAGs, MOS etc.). Twinkle gives A LOT of options when posting welcome messages so in most cases I would not personally see the reason why I would create a custom message for one user. But… in case Twinkle does not have some welcome messages (e.g. I do not think that it has a welcome message for WP:BRD), I’d go ahead and create a small custom one to let the user know if they are doing something wrong. There are also warning templates - but I’d say that new users mostly get scared when they get one on their talk page (I mean, I did back in 2020 when I got warned for edit warring). I do not think that we should bite new users, but instead, post them a simple message explaining: 1) what are they doing wrong, 2) how they can improve on and 3) tell them which PAGs and essays they can read to get more knowledge on how Wikipedia works.
Optional question from EggRoll97
edit
13. As part of my belief that admins should have at minimum a basic understanding of the technical backend (as they gain all the technical rights once promoted), please summarize the use of edit filters generally. Wikipedia:Edit filter is a good resource, and I'm not looking for a terribly detailed answer, just a basic understanding.
A: As far as I can see, edit filters are used to "filter" harmful edits made by users. While I see this as a good thing, I have no experience with working with them and have no intention of doing so.
Optional questions from Robert McClenon
edit
14. What do you, as an editor and as an administrator, plan to do to address the use of large language models and other artificial intelligence in Wikipedia?
A. As I’ve mentioned above, we already have some great guidelines such as WP:NEWLLM, WP:AIIMGBLP, and WP:AIIMAGES. I’d like to see NEWLLM get expanded a bit - we particularly need a strict guideline to not create GA and FAC reviews using LLMs. At least for GAs, this has been an issue which was brought up several times but AFAIK nothing has been done to address the issue. LLMs do not know how to properly review such articles and they often put vague words that do not help the nominator at all. I think that the same should also be applied for other types of reviews (e.g. DYK and PR). Beyond creating AI-generated articles and reviews, as well as inserting AI-generated content into established articles, I haven’t noticed too many issues caused by LLMs. Though, as I’ve already said, I would support stricter policies to combat LLMs if something new pops up that could harm Wikipedia.
15. What experience do you have as an editor in dealing with disputes between users?
A. I’ve had disagreements with users in the past, which I’ve described in Q3, but I don’t have a lot of experience mediating disputes. When talking about disputes, most of my edits came from Brothers of Italy - there were disputes about the political position and the inclusion of neo-fascism in the infobox. I’ve participated in many discussions on the talk page, but considering that some users in those discussions consistently whitewashed the party’s image, I gave up and removed the article from my watchlist.
I participated in similar discussions over content disputes at National Rally (political position), Law and Justice (political position and ideologies), Danish People’s Party (ideologies), Fidesz (political position), Vox (political party) (political positions). I’ve either participated in normal discussions or RfCs. The only dispute noticeboard discussion that I’ve participated in was actually pretty recently - over the Tetris dispute on whether the article should be referred to as a single video game or as a series of video games. I’ve found the lede to be confusing while reviewing the article for FAC.
Optional question from BusterD
edit
16. I'm posing this question seven hours before closure, and at this moment it appears your request is likely to succeed. Well done. May your wikicareer be a source of pride to your nominators and supporters. Are there any other words you'd like to add to (or say about) this process before the final !votes are tallied?
A:

Discussion

edit

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

Numerated (#) "votes" in the "Support", "Oppose", and "Neutral" sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account. All other comments are welcome in the "general comments" section.

Support
edit
  1. Support as co-nominator. Schwede66 08:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  2. Support. I've encountered Vacant0 at GAN, where they impressed me with being able to write neutrally about highly contested political topics. Strong record, keeps their head cool, and we can definitely use the help at DYK and ITN from someone who has experience in more controversial areas. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  3. Support. I've also worked with Vacant0 at GAN, where they've been a great help with co-ordinating backlog drives. Have been waiting for this nomination and excited to support. -- asilvering (talk) 08:59, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  4. Support. Good profile, good stats, impressive CC. I'll also trust the noms, who I know better. Iseult Δx talk to me 09:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  5. Support: I have not encountered Rie where they intend to admin, but in the parts of the project I have, I have seen generosity and the deeply admirable quality of being able to write and research well on topics broad and narrow. These are qualities I would like more of in our admin corp. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 09:03, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  6. Support. Toadspike [Talk] 09:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  7. Support. No red flags, good content coverage shows they know what we're actually supposed to be here for too. - SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  8. Support. MCE89 (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  9. Support Panini! • 🥪 09:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  10. Support. Halbared (talk) 09:58, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  11. Support No concerns; impressive editor and collaborator. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  12. Support, a good Wikipedia career so far, no reason to think that would change wielding the admin tools. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  13. Support. CoconutOctopus [[User talk:CoconutOctopus|talk] 10:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  14. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  15. Has clue, not jerk. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 12:03, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  16. Support, Seen them around in GAN, no-concerns. -- Sohom (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  17. Support civil, has clue, 'nuff said. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  18. Support don't see any issues. Zalaraz (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  19. Support Here to join the early support barrage! fanfanboy (blocktalk) 13:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  20. hell yeah charlotte 👸♥ 13:33, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  21. I've seen them around and not in any context that would give me pause. Multiple FAs is a default support from me (ie, in the absence of problems)—if you can do the research and writing, you know the policies, and if you can accept feedback well enough to navigate FAC more than once you can handle admin accountability. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  22. hell yeah! ... sawyer * any/all * talk 13:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  23. I recognized the name, but couldn't immediately place it, which is a good sign in the WP:ARBMAC topic area :) Rummaging a bit through history, I found that I had to correct one of their 2024 edits, but other than that we had largely innocuous and pleasant interactions, esp. this one or this one. If your adminship means someone can relieve @Vanjagenije from being the go-to Serbian admin, esp. when abusers bog us down in weird disputes, it's a very good thing. --Joy (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  24. Mainly know him from the good article newsletter, will be a great admin HurricaneZetaC 14:23, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  25. Support  – Sophisticatedevening(talk) 14:33, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  26. Support. I've never interacted with this user directly, but their content contributions are impressive and they seem very level headed. I always like seeing people who can change their mind about something as well. Best of luck! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 14:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  27. Thrilled to see this. Vacant0 is an kind contributor of amazing content, and I am delighted to support their RFA :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  28. Support of course! Fathoms Below (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  29. Support ITN can always use more help! Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  30. Support not seeing any issues. Bringing topics such as Far-right politics in Serbia to GA shows that they know their content and NPOV. I don't doubt they'll be able to act neutrally as an admin also. CNC (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  31. Support this is an easy choice, no real downside I can see. We definitely need active and qualified admins. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  32. Support nothing more to add Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:23, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  33. Support as their work in Food articles is to be admired, as is their ability to step away from a heated conflict. -- Reconrabbit 15:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  34. Support. Obligatory "it's about time". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 15:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  35. Support Looks good. Lynch44 15:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  36. Support I know Vacant0 primarily from their work at GAN (where they were also my GAN mentor), and I am confident that their calm, patient demeanour and impressive content portfolio will bring them to serve as a great asset to our admin corps :). GoldRomean (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  37. Fuck yes Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 15:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  38. Support belatedly, as nominator. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  39. Support. The4lines |||| (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  40. Support JuniperChill (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  41. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:33, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  42. Support. How are you not already an admin? You've been really supportive and always pointed me in the right direction whenever I needed help. Gommeh 📖   🎮 16:34, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  43. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  44. Support Intothatdarkness 16:34, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  45. Zzz plant (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  46. Support great candidate :) IsCat (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  47. Support Sure, I don't see why not. LightlySeared (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  48. Support. MSincccc (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  49. Support Have seen nothing but competence from everything I recall about this editor. --TylerBurden (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  50. Support – Yue🌙 (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  51. Support will be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  52. Support Amazing quality content. toby (t)(c)(rw)(omo) 18:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  53. Support I've been consistently impressed with their contributions. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  54. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  55. Support Outstanding quality of articles 🙂 It's always a good day when seeing another Vacant0 page among the recently promoted GAs, as I read almost all of them, and they're always a good read. Cheers from North Carolina! Johnson524 19:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  56. Support - FlightTime (open channel) 19:53, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  57. Support Vacant0's prolific content creation makes me confident about their abilities, and community-focused work like maintaining the Good Article Gazette shows their ability to support others. Plus, I got to name it 😉. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 20:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  58. I'm not familiar with this candidate, so I checked a random sample of their contributions. I found nothing show-stopping, so I land here in the support column. For the record I don't agree with this edit, and I feel the lead (while admittedly five longish paragraphs) is reasonable in context, but that's a minor quibble, not the kind of thing I'd consider opposing over.—S Marshall T/C 20:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  59. Support I have mainly just seen their activity in the video game section of Wikipedia, but I can vouch for their willingness to go the extra mile to improve the encyclopedia there. Their very excellent content creation credentials give me no qualms about supporting this. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  60. Support Why not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  61. Support – per nom :) FaviFake (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  62. Support - great content editor that has identified clearly useful, applicable, and manageable areas to start admining in.Czarking0 (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  63. Support for sure Nil🥝 22:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  64. Support! I'm excited to see this nomination. Having worked with Vacant0 here and there over the last couple of years, I've only ever come away with the impression that they have a good head on their shoulders. I'm sure they'll make a great addition to the team. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  65. —Ingenuity (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  66. Support. They did a lot of good contributions here. Galaxybeing (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  67. Support - always seen them as a potential member of the mop corps :) ~delta {talk • cont • 🇰🇷 • 🎢} 02:40, 24 January 2026
  68. Support - I have worked alongside Vacant on GANR drives a couple times and have always found them pleasant to work with, informative and civil. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 02:42, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  69. Support, nothing but good interactions during my time with Vacant0. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  70. Support Only ever had positive and productive interactions with Vacant; will make a great admin. Number 57 03:14, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  71. Support. Why not? I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 03:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  72. Support Strong candidate. Seanwk :) (Talk | Contribs) 03:33, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  73. Support. Seems like a great candidate for adminship. Chocmilk03 (talk) 06:06, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  74. Support, I don't think I've encountered this candidate before, but I'm impressed by their content creation record and answers to questions. Graham87 (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  75. Support Vacant0 is able to work with a neutral point of view on content in a pretty fraught area of WP, and maintain a level head despite all the POV warriors. I know the Balkans area on WP well and Vacant0 has consistently been a positive in a space with lots of negatives and plenty of provocation. Always good to have admins who have content creation chops, and three FAs is enough for me. Have a mop. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:15, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  76. Support Spent the last hour stalking them, I have no concerns and think they are a strong candidate. Viatori (talk) 08:26, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  77. Support - any civil person with an FA to their name who volunteers to assist in admin areas is a welcome addition. There are many content related admin duties that have a high workload — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 10:00, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  78. Support - no reason not to. Also >60% mainspace edits! //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 11:14, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  79. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 13:30, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  80. Support Although I am not in favor of more death blurbs, the vote morass that passes for ITN discussion could certainly use more thought. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  81. Support. They were an organizer for the Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/May 2025. Experience at ITN too. No concerns. There's a thread ongoing right now about how more content-creating admins are wanted at WP:ERRORS. Rjjiii (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  82. Glad to support. Best wishes. -Volten001 ☎ 14:13, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  83. Support I remember signing up for the Good Article Gazette during its inception, and while I sadly haven't been as close to the GA area as I was a couple months ago, it's still nice to see these updates get made to keep editors aware of what's going on for good articles. I also remember skimming through the Terraria FAC page when that was being reviewed, and I feel confident in Vacant0's ability to write great quality articles. Vacant0 will make a good content driven administrator with those qualities in mind. Gramix13 (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  84. Support --Enos733 (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  85. Support. Not familiar with the candidate's work but given the nominators' endorsement and reviewing their credentials and discussion I see no reason not to grant sysop. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  86. Support Strong candidate. – DreamRimmer ■ 16:05, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  87. Support. While I have not interacted with Vacant0 they are a very qualified candidate with a lot of content experience in good article reviews and good article nominations which shows they know the policies. I see no reason why they should not be an admin they would do a great job I am sure. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 17:16, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  88. Support. Thanks for all your work! Tvpuppy (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  89. Support: You have every right to be proud of the Gazette—it's a rare thing to see such initiative and is definitely the kind of behavior the admin corps could use. Glad to publicly voice my support for you. Best of luck with the mop! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  90. Support per noms. Though we haven't directly interacted that much, I've only had good impressions of the candidate's work. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  91. Support. YuniToumei (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  92. Support. Vacant0's excellent track record with GANs shows that they have their skills with collaboration and improving the encyclopedia. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 22:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  93. Support. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  94. Support - no red flags, many green flags. Bearian (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  95. Support. An all-around strong candidate, with impressive content work. And I think the answer to Q3 is one of the best that I have ever seen. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  96. Support. Three FAs => support from me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  97. Support Has a clue. No red or yellow flags. Clear net positive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  98. Support ULPS (talk • contribs) 02:09, 25 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  99. Support any editor who would bring an article to GA during their RFA has my trust 1brianm7 (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  100. Support No concerns. Mkdw talk 05:09, 25 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  101. Support. Excellent content contributions. — Newslinger talk 05:26, 25 January 2026 (UTC)reply
    Support Went trough profile and contribution. Though AfD participation is too low, but it doesn't matter. Excellent choice for RFA. --SatnaamIN (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  102. Support Reviewed one of their articles. They have done much in the community and have created and nominated many quality articles. No reason not to support. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 08:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  103. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  104. Support Trust user. --Peterxy（talk） 11:31, 25 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  105. Support Thanks for volunteering. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  106. Support mostly per Q5. ITN is way too cliquey for its own good and at least this user seems to have clue while attempting to wade those rough waters. Wizardman 14:12, 25 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  107. Support: obviously clueful about swathes of Wikiacreage I have little interest in personally tilling, and this is how we keep the farm going. Julietdeltalima (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  108. Support per nominators and pleasant impressions at FAC. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 14:37, 25 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  109. Although I haven't lately come across their work, I trust the words of the nominators. signed, Aafi (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  110. Support. ScalarFactor (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  111. Strong support - Multiple featured articles and dozens of good articles prove that Vacant0 knows what the encyclopedia is about. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  112. Support :) Chlod (say hi!) 16:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  113. Support - an incredibly well-established editor and and a great person to nominate. GGOTCC 17:16, 25 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  114. Support. kline / talk / contribs 17:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  115. Support. This guy's to-do list inspires me. —TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 18:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  116. Support. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  117. Support User:Easternsahara 19:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  118. Support Good answer to my question above, and I appreciated being reminded of their GA nom that I promoted and the experience of working together. It will be an asset to have such a content-focused admin. Daniel Case (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  119. Support insert witty and thought-provoking comment here Polygnotus (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  120. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  121. Support. Strong nom and thoughtful answer to question 3. RegentsPark (comment) 23:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  122. Support. Extremely glad I caught this nomination in time. Vacant's work on Serbian topics and video games is impressive. I don't think the 79 AfD participation is an issue, though; it's reasonable to say that Vacant0 would be very familiar with the notability guidelines. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 00:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  123. Support: anyone working so hard on things like "List of 19th-century newspapers in Serbia" fits in great around here SpiralShell (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  124. Support An accomplished editor who knows their way around content. Acroterion (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  125. Support per nom Ryan shell (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  126. Support – Plenty of experience in content work, as well as work in areas that would need administrative help, like ITN and AFD, so I believe Vacant would make a great and competent administrator.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisWx (talk • contribs)
  127. Support – trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  128. Support – per my stated criteria. Established FA content creator. --GregJackP Boomer! 05:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  129. Support Trustworthy editor, not a jerk. The oppose and neutral !votes aren't moving the needle for me. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:05, 26 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  130. sapphaline (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  131. Support. Honestly thought they were an admin already. S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 09:09, 26 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  132. Support :) -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 09:13, 26 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  133. Support Nothing wrong here. Mox Eden (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  134. Support – a great content creator who knows their way around ITN! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:20, 26 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  135. Support Aoba47 (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  136. Support I am persuaded by the nominators, the candidate's experience, and their answers to questions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  137. Si Promising candidate. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  138. Support Luniiiiiii there's a RfA !!~ --kewl sock(anti-pro-air)(no talk) 17:34, 26 January 2026 (UTC)reply
    @Pro-anti-air: I know you for sure didn't mean to, but I think it's probably best to steer clear in general of pinging friends to RfAs, since it can look a lot like canvassing. (laughing at your edit summary though!) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:53, 26 January 2026 (UTC)reply
    ok, thanks for noticing that theleekycauldron! kewl sock(anti-pro-air)(no talk) 19:25, 26 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  139. Support Sounds convincing. I see nothing of concern :) Renerpho (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  140. Support Great contributor and thoughtful communicator. I see no issues. — CactusWriter (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  141. Support =) – LuniZunie(talk) 21:17, 26 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  142. Support: I'm especially in agreement with the comments about being able to edit neutrally in a controversial area. Great person to give the mop to! JustARandomSquid (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  143. Support Rolluik (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  144. Support - Adequate tenure, clean block long, positive content contributions, no indications of assholery. No concerns. Carrite (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  145. Support - Very solid candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:40, 26 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  146. Support - I trust them with a mop. GamerPro64 01:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  147. Support' More admins please! More content admins please! JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 06:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  148. Support Will make a great admin with lots of great content contributions! echidnalives - talk - edits 06:54, 27 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  149. Support No concerns. Rzuwig► 11:33, 27 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  150. Support Based on Vacant's contributions and intended areas of focus, they appear to be well-equipped to handle the mop. I understand some users' concerns with AfD participation, but I concur with the argument that experience writing quality articles gives users the knowledge of sourcing necessary to verify whether a subject meets the general notability criteria. Extensive experience with article creation also enables them to understand the mentality of people who focus on (re)writing articles, which should help them moderate and mediate content disputes.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  151. Support codelivid 15:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  152. Support. More competent and willing admins of all stripes are needed, and this candidate clearly has a clue and a use for the tools. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  153. Support and with thanks for your great work up to this point. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 20:39, 27 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  154. Support I've seen vandals rot at AIV early in the day, and their peak times coincide with my morning. So even the most of occasional of check-ins would be very welcome. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  155. Support Giulio 00:20, 28 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  156. Support. Good candidate and would have been a great mop. Fade258 (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  157. Support A well qualified candidate with the right attitude. Cullen328 (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  158. Support per noms, and per Vacant0's A11: a well-reasoned argument regarding an important, developing area of policy while maintaining an open mind on the issue. Staraction (talk · contribs) 03:26, 28 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  159. Support Good Candidate. Destinyokhiria (talk / cont) 12:41, 28 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  160. Support Pleasure to work with in GAN and FAN arenas. Thank you for volunteering! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:19, 28 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  161. Support Good work. Willbb234 15:01, 28 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  162. Support Looks good. VegaDark (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  163. Support Well qualified candidate. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  164. Support They're a good, qualified candidate. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 23:23, 28 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  165. Support—Kurtis (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  166. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  167. jp×g🗯️ 06:05, 29 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  168. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  169. S – kind user, that's important for the role too. CoryGlee 13:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  170. Support -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  171. Jianhui67 T★C 15:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  172. Support Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 15:23, 29 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  173. Support No objections from me. DraconicDark (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  174. Thoughtful answer, so... sure. DS (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  175. Support - I haven't seen this editor at the drama boards, which means that they haven't edit-warred. Their answers to the questions indicate thought. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  176. Support Has a clue. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 18:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  177. Support. Competent, experienced, no issues. Maproom (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  178. Happy to pile on Support. Good noms, good answers, good luck! BusterD (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  179. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 00:29, 30 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  180. Support No concerns. Though we have not crossed paths previously that I am aware of, I find the candidate's temperament in questions answers to be encouraging and I trust the opinions of Vanamonde93 and Schwede66, among others above. Welcome to the corps, Vacant0! --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  181. Support pile on per noms, answers, editing history. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  182. Support Good attitude, answers and articles! Best, IP75 (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  183. Stephen 03:58, 30 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  184. Support Per noms. randFreeman 06:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose
edit
  1. Went trough profile and contribution. AfD participation is too low. Lost a bit nominating. Why this shouldn't be a concern? --SatnaamIN (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)reply
    They have edited 79 unique AfD pages. For someone who wants to work at AfD, a record between 50 and 100 can often demonstrate whether somebody understands the AfD process intricacies well. Note that Vacant0 has not indicated they want to work at AfD, so it might not be that relevant. And content-focussed editors have good understanding of some of the policies relevant at AfD, like source assessments. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)reply
    +1 Vacant0 has dozens of GAs. I think they understand the notability guidelines. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:33, 25 January 2026 (UTC)reply
Neutral
edit
  1. I cannot recall interacting with the user. They are fairly new and this meant our peak times never crossed, so I won't hold it against them. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
    Fairly new? They've been here 6 years. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
    If 49,000 edits and six years of experience is "new" then I don't know what isn't. EF5 17:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
    Anyone who's account was made after Jimbo Wales's is new. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
    Not to pile on, but we have admins who first registered in 2023. The candidate registered their account several years before that and, as mentioned above, has 49,000 edits. It's fine to be neutral on the candidacy for other reasons, but I'm just pointing out that, if someone had posted this in 2007, everyone would have been "fairly new" by this definition. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
    ugh I'm a 2022 and I already feel old now charlotte 👸♥ 01:48, 25 January 2026 (UTC)reply
    Out of curiosity, what do you consider to be new and not new? Viatori (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
    @Viatori: Emir of Wikipedia made over 90% of their edits between 2016 and 2019, so before Vacant0 began editing. Anyway, I think the main argument was that they didn't interact much because Vacant0 started after 2019, and I think that's fair. Renerpho (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  2. Doesn't know this person but an admin mustn't forget to sign their comments! —Opecuted (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
    I think signing the responses to the questions is optional. Looking at previous RfAs some candidates don't sign while others do. HurricaneZetaC 15:27, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
    Thanks for the heads up. I can see why it'd be optional, though personally I'd prefer at least a timestamp. —Opecuted (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
    Noting that I’ve reverted your addition of the unsigned template because not signing the question answers was very likely intentional. The candidate or RfA monitors are welcome to revert me if they feel different. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 15:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  3. Would like to see just a bit more AfD participation. While content creation is important, it isn't the only thing a good admin should have under their belt. Let'srun (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  4. As stated by others, I'd like to see more well-rounded participation in non-article creation aspects of Wikipedia to better determine this user's ability to understand and apply policies and guidelines. Jcgaylor (talk) 09:18, 27 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  5. As stated by Jcgaylor, and others, the user needs more participation to determine eligibility. Tokeamour (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2026 (UTC)reply
General comments
edit
  • Though Vacant0 and the nominators state that they are a "frequent" contributor at ITN, I do not recall running into them often. I checked our recent archives, and I only see a few comments in Dec 2025 and a few in Nov 2025 (<10 for each month), and they have not made any edits to ITN in Jan 2026. Not that this is a major concern, but I am confused by the "frequent contributor" statement. Natg 19 (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
    They have 546 edits to ITN/C per XTools, compared to your 1,654. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 23 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  • I am user:LindsayH, though i have had difficulty for some time accessing and editing WP as my internet access has been through a VPN, and as i'm adding this not logged in, on a different machine altogether from my usual, i realise that i can't !vote, but i will express mine opinion that althrough the candidate is not well known to me, i am well impressed with what i see on the user page, in contributions, and one or two very thoughtful answers to the questions. Cheers ~2026-52451-8 (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
    Totally off-topic but you should run for admin again! --JBL (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  • @Voorts: I'm not opposing due to low AfD participation, but creating or promoting article(s) to FA/GA doesn't directly show understanding of notability guidelines. We had a GA (or was it FA?) of a baseball player taken to AfD, and it got deleted weird times. —usernamekiran (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  • I have no interaction with this user yet. Theeverywhereperson talk here 07:14, 24 January 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Kind of sitting here as well since I'm shocked I've never seen this editor before, but am also not able to take the time to make a better informed decision to support or oppose. (I was originally just going to sit this one out, but after seeing this nomination and subsequently getting "Who Are You" stuck in my head, figured I'd at least acknowledge I've seen this nomination with this rather worthless comment.) Steel1943 (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2026 (UTC)reply
    • @Theeverywhereperson and Steel1943: Because your votes are explicitly not based on the candidate's fitness for office and are based on not having reviewed their qualifications, I've moved them to the general comments section. If you feel empowered to weigh in, feel free to do so. (To be clear, I'm applying an extremely low standard here, much lower than the spelled-out standard of [i]f you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting – I would defer to basically any !vote that communicates something colorably related to a reason to support, oppose, or abstain.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:06, 28 January 2026 (UTC)reply
      I'd rather just have my voice struck as a response to probably the most pedantic, fun-killing bureaucracy I've seen at RFA in a while, as well as essentially disagreeing with the outlook that my stance is a neutral stance ... which it is. Steel1943 (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2026 (UTC)reply
      ( peanut gallery comment) I’d like to object to the striking of these neutral !votes. They acknowledge the nomination, even if they do not take a clear position (which is intended for neutral !votes, no?). If this standard were applied broadly, many short (especially those without any comment) support comments, such as “no concerns” or “thanks for volunteering,” could also be questioned. These comments also do not clearly show that the editor reviewed the candidate’s contributions or took a stance on the candidate’s fitness for office. I just wanted to raise that concern, and I’m open to being corrected if this is common practice since I've returned from break. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 17:32, 28 January 2026 (UTC)reply
      In defense of my vote, I believe the community has in the past seen unqualified "Support" votes as agreeing with the rationale(s) presented by the nominator(s), thus requiring no additional justification. Toadspike [Talk] 17:47, 28 January 2026 (UTC)reply
      No need to defend your vote on my account. I see no issue with votes without comment (or one deemed somehow insufficient), but I think that whether they are struck or not should be consistent. :) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 18:00, 28 January 2026 (UTC)reply
      I would say that support votes are generally presumed to echo the nomination statement, so they usually have an easier time meeting that low bar. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:10, 28 January 2026 (UTC)reply
      I thought only votes that reference the noms are in support of them? It's likely some will support in-spite of - or even in contradiction with - the nominators statements. Maybe this is nitpicking as is irrelevant with this RfA at present, but if this were a 70-30 split, the weight of such support votes would play a significant part in determining consensus, without inheriting unreferrenced rationales. The noms would already gain significant weight by means of direct support, so I don't see why it'd be artificially extended. When there is limited to no opposition there is evidently no need to add weight to votes, at least that's how I see it. Can't remember which buro discussion I read, but some !votes referenced the absence of supporting rationales (despite noms) - and gave greater weight due to the opposition due to lack of support rationales - so I got the impression the support isn't inherited at all. Ideally I'd never be assumed to be supporting a nomination statement that I categorically disagree with, even if I support the candidate. CNC (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2026 (UTC)reply
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Vacant0&oldid=1335630009"