No article found for “Adam Andreas Cnollen?action=edit&redlink=1”.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rjjiii

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Rjjiii

Final (170/0/1); This RFA has been closed as successful by ϢereSpielChequers at 19:22, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Monitors:

Nomination

Rjjiii (talk · contribs) – I'm very pleased to introduce Rjjiii for consideration. A strong content creator, he first caught my eye in WP:The Core Contest of 2024, where he won first prize with a beautiful rewrite of Night. He now has 10 GAs and 2 FAs under his belt, including the collaboration at the Roswell incident.
The attention to detail shown in their content work is mirrored in his admin-adjacent work, particularly at AfD, where their elaborate explanations make it easy for closers to find consensus. His high match rate (99%) shows a willingness to delve deep into sourcing to assess notability (e.g. in his recent nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard (demon)). These are also skills that come in handy at DYK, where the high volume of new hooks each day means that mistakes are sometimes only noticed last minute, and can therefore only be fixed with the admin tools. He is consistently kind and friendly, as demonstrated in their reviews at FAC, GAN and their work in the Teahouse, which shows their commitment to supporting newcomers. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Co-nomination statement

Rjjiii– that’s one R, two Js, and three Is– has been a consistently excellent editor and one I’m proud to be co-nominating. RJ’s work particularly around identifying reliable sources and removing long standing poorly sourced text demonstrates a strong content sensibility useful for admin work. Like Femke, he first appeared on my radar for their rewrite of Night, an article I had always wanted to fix up but never got around to due to the overwhelming research required due to it being such a “general” topic. Under RJ, the article went from a few jumbled under sourced paragraphs and spare trivia to an extensively sourced article bordering on FA quality– a literal night and day difference! The time RJ provides into his work is truly impressive. This thorough mindset goes beyond article writing; Rj has considerable experience around AfD voting and template editor related work, including maintaining citation templates and vetting and promoting DYK hooks. His contributions talk page interactions and discussion contributions show a calm demeanor and responsiveness when questioned. I’m convinced Rjjiii will be as excellent of an admin as they are an editor and hope the community joins in supporting. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:43, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, and I've not edited for pay. I have one other account, User:Rjjiii (ii), mainly for mobile testing.

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: It would be an extension of some of the work I already do. To pitch in at Did You Know (DYK), I have promoted over 200 hooks to DYK's prep areas, written over a dozen nominations, flagged unresolved issues on approved DYK nominations, and responded to errors on the Main Page. Hooks near the Main Page require admin permissions to fix. They also require experience with DYK processes, guidelines, and technical workings, which I already have.
I have also worked in many aspects of the deletion processes. I have !voted or commented in over a hundred deletion discussions, closed dozens of Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussions, was thanked for a merge close with a detailed closing statement, and have completely rewritten articles at AfD, like Instagram face. My AfD !votes match the outcome the vast majority of the time.
The admin tools would allow me to take on additional roles in those two broad areas. In deletion discussions, I could delete and undelete articles. At the moment, I close discussions at TfD and orphan template transclusions, but still have to rely on other admins to delete the templates. I would also be able to directly resolve Main Page issues reported at WP:ERRORS, and in the DYK areas that are fully protected before being transcluded to the Main Page.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Leroy Chollet is a featured biography where I am the primary author. When I first googled him, the Wikipedia article was only a stub. While researching, I expanded the article and took it through Good article, Did you know, and Featured article reviews. I have 10 GAs including some on broader topics, like night which I rewrote during the 2024 Core Contest for Vital Articles.
My work on the {{Historical populations}} template is probably relevant for advanced permissions; I implemented a consensus contrary to my own proposal. After fixing the template's appearance for current themes, editors reported issues on the older themes it was originally written for. A revert would not display the former style for most readers, so we discussed it on the talk page. I worked out a technical solution to restore the template's visual style. This preserved the intended style on the old desktop themes, but it also worked on mobile devices, the new desktop theme, the app, and dark mode.
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 handle conflicts mainly by staying focused on the content and leaning on the policies and sources. For example, I worked mainly with a couple of experienced editors to get the Roswell incident article up to FA status. Working with two experienced editors with differing views where one person is challenging inclusion of content and one challenging exclusion of content has improved my own skills with writing and research beyond just Wikipedia. You can find a detailed chart in the archives where I did a lengthy analysis of which conspiracy theories were covered by which reliable sources in order to determine WP:DUEWEIGHT in the article.
The only time I was reported to the administrator's noticeboard for incidents (ANI) was regarding the Westall UFO article, when a newer editor was attempting to add material against policies and guidelines. On the article's talk page, I cited and quoted the relevant portions of WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:V. The other editor argued for a reversed interpretation of Wikipedia policies, but consensus at ANI supported my approach. In the future, I'll continue to lean on policies and sources to direct concerns towards the encyclopedic content rather than interpersonal conflicts.

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 Robertsky
4. Our paths seldom cross, I think primarily because the admin areas we are in don't usually overlap. Are there any other admin areas that you would like work in?
A: Those two areas are where I would start. Beyond that, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (AIV) interests me, but I'd first seek more experience as a regular editor. I've reported about a dozen vandalism-only accounts at AIV and have experience with Twinkle and generic rollback. However, that's not enough experience to fully evaluate when a block is needed, so I'd continue to make reports to better understand the process.
I could also help with fully protected edit requests at Wikipedia:Dashboard#Requested_edits when there is a backlog, although there is usually a greater backlog for the template-protected requests. I have implemented straightforward and complex edit requests on protected templates.
Optional question from 11wallisb
5. The Roswell incident is a fascinating subject, congratulations on bringing it up to FA, that is a great achievement! When writing articles, I've found that I enjoy it more when I have a fervent interest in the subject. Is this the case for the articles you have created and researched, and will you continue to work on and create articles once you become an administrator? Best of luck to you!
A: First, let me share some credit with my collaborators. (They are welcome to name themselves below if they wish, though I don't want to extend RfA scrutiny to editors who didn't sign up for it.) I would likely not have gotten involved if there had not been another editor already trying to expand and improve the article. Beyond formal credits, several editors dropped by to clean up, tag errors, give feedback on the talk page, and help rewrite whole sections in a subpage.
Second, absolutely! Any topic is much easier when there's interest, and, yes, I plan to continue writing after becoming an administrator. I hope to bring the Ottoman corsair/cartographer Piri Reis up to FA status in the future. Also, I forage as a hobby, and have been reading about the Eastern Agricultural Complex plants that were farmed in North America before the introduction of maize and beans. Some, like maygrass and lambsquarters, should be growing wild in Louisiana this coming spring, and hopefully I can tie that interest into their articles.
Optional question from HwyNerd Mike
6. Although this is my first time knowing you, I found that you have an amazing record of bringing articles to GAs, like Night ◎ 4. How would you describe the process of sourcing, MOS, etc. in bringing such general topics to a good article? More specifically, how do you filter reliable sources?
A: This depends on what's available. To find NPOV's "due weight", I start by looking for high-quality sources about the topic of the article: university press books, published books from experts, literature reviews in journals, or reference articles. Continuing with Night as an example, there's an excellent book for both sourcing and due weight on the "History" section: Roger Ekirch's At Day's Close. For the "Biology" sections, I ran into the issue where most books about night overall, or even just the biology of night, were written for a younger audience. This suggested writing at least the article's first paragraph as approachable to even a middle school reader, though those weren't citable sources. It's not visible from the actual article, but for that section I used several high-quality documentaries to determine due weight. I let them play while taking paper notes and used the common topics to search via Wikipedia Library for sources that were peer-reviewed although more specific. MOS shouldn't be too different between broad and narrow topic articles, since it's meant to give consistency across the encyclopedia.
Optional questions from Staraction
7. What inspired your username, if anything?
A: Those are just my initials. When I made an account, I didn't think about anybody having to read or type them. I've tried to format my signature a bit to make it easier: Rjjiii (talk)
8. What are your thoughts on artificial intelligence being used to edit Wikipedia, especially among newer users?
A: It's complicated, which is why I imagine policy creation for AI content is moving slowly. The current types of generative AI work with language, not facts. This means that the more linguistic a task is, the more helpful the AI can be. For some examples, Google Translate uses a neural machine translation system, and Grammarly a large language model (LLM). To an extent, you can use a chatbot-style LLM for linguistic tasks like checking MOS compliance or explaining uncommented code.
AI will fail when given more fact-based or research-heavy tasks. This makes them nearly useless for creating content because:
  • Hallucinations are an inherent result of how LLMs create plausible content without knowing the facts.
  • An LLM does not know when it plagiarizes. When I tested a Gemini prompt that another editor suggested for fact-checking on the Kitab-ı Bahriye article, I found that the AI copied portions of its answer from another Wikipedia article without attribution. This goes hand in hand with the tendency to cite non-existent sources. An editor unfamiliar with the possible sources on a topic wouldn't have a way to catch when an LLM fabricates and plagiarizes sources.
  • Also, LLMs have biases that they cannot confront. By design, they can only amplify FUTON (Full Text On the Net) bias.
A problem for new editors, in particular, is that they will see more AI advertising hype than Wikipedia discussions about why the current generative AI models cannot create encyclopedic content. A new editor creating an article entirely from LLM output may legitimately not realize how this can be disruptive. Earlier this month another editor and I cleaned up an article on a notable individual that seemed to be the result of someone running their notes through an LLM.
Optional questions from Daniel Case
9. Outside of Wikipedia, have you ever held positions analogous to adminship, i.e. involving the trust of a great deal of people, and the exercise of authority not granted everyone involved, including taking adverse actions? You can discuss details to the extent you feel comfortable doing so.
A: Yes.
10. If you have that experience, how would it inform your use of the admin tools?
A: Working in healthcare has some parallels to adminship. When providing and organizing behavioral health services, one will have private information regarding clients that must be omitted from communication. For example, if a client won't be available on a certain day, there is no need to include the client's name or reason for absence when notifying staff. Staff working with the client will know their name, and the client or family can disclose their reasons if they wish. I have heard that people sometimes privately email an admin about concerns with paid editing. If I received that type of email, I'd share the paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org email address and the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline with the reporting editor, so that a CheckUser or member of the Arbitration Committee could follow up. I would not share any details of their correspondence
Optional question from Andrew D.
11. I was going to ask about your account name but I see that's covered above. But your user page is a bit light on personal information so I'd like to know you better. I see that the lead picture on your user page is a Woodie and I'm curious about that as my father had a UK equivalent. I suppose the picture mainly illustrates your preference for fixing up existing articles but is there anything more to it please?
A: I tend to be private. I believe I chose that image to represent collaboration after I asked my brother to help replace the windshield wiper motor in my Crown Vic (a very different type of Ford). The replacement part fit, but as soon as I activated the wipers, the metal bar attached to the motor caught on something until it was chucked several yards clear of the car. My brother filmed it and helped me figure out what to grind down. The collaboration turned a frustration into something to connect over and laugh about. Though I don't put many personal details on my user page, I did add a few more of my own photos of places that spoke to my heart after reading your question.
Optional question from HwyNerd Mike
12. I can see that you have done major content work over the years. In articles like the Roswell incident, that you have brought to FA, how did you make sure that you give due weight to all conspiracies and explanations in order to avoid bias issues?
A: For the Roswell incident, finding a neutral point of view is actually more straightforward than many other conspiracy theories and subjects of conspiracy theories because there is so much research and scholarship on the topic. In a talk page chart, we were able to go one-by-one through the major threads and analyze which of the reliable sources gave how much weight to each topic. When doing research, we found 7 university press books, dozens of books from other reputable publishers, recent newspaper retrospectives, scholarly journal articles, and skeptical analyses. This amount of research makes finding due weight easier, and it also gives a broad range of citable hard facts that can be objectively laid out. The article is also a good example of how having editors with a variety of viewpoints, even on a controversial topic, can strengthen the neutrality. The additional perspective and scrutiny definitely helped to catch areas where I might not otherwise have so thoroughly examined my own perspective or preconceptions.
Optional questions from Robert McClenon
13. Do you have any specific ideas for how to minimize the damage to Wikipedia from the use of artificial intelligence?
A: Yes, there are two overlapping approaches I see as clearly helpful.
First, it helps to have explicit policies on the types of AI use that are not currently accepted in practice. Some editors misread the advisory nature of the essay WP:LLM to mean that forms of AI use not explicitly banned are acceptable. Two solid steps in this direction are the WP:G15 speedy deletion criteria for articles with implausible or nonexistent references, and the recently proposed guideline.
Second, it's important to explain, to newer editors especially, why certain types of AI use are damaging. AI is used by undisclosed paid editors to quickly churn out articles, but it's also used by well-intentioned contributors who are just unaware of conversations like these. For someone who has been hearing how amazing AI is, and has been using it to proofread their essays and suggest recipes based on the contents of their fridge, it may not be at all clear why the same software damages Wikipedia when asked to create encyclopedic content or write talk page messages.
14. Do you have any specific ideas for how to minimize the damage to Wikipedia from paid editing and especially from undisclosed paid editing?
A:
Optional question from Ritchie333
15. There are elections happening soon. I'm wondering why you chose to run now instead of stand for election ?
A: The timing isn't related to AELECT. When approached to run, this felt like the right time. My thoughts were more on where I was as an editor and what I had left to learn. I'm glad that both options are currently available.
Optional question from DragonflySixtyseven
16. Under what circumstances would you leave a new editor a boilerplate message as opposed to a personalized one (or vice-versa)?
A: There are a couple different situations where I find template messages useful. Boilerplate can come across as impersonal in tone, but sometimes impersonal is the appropriate tone. When an editor does something the community broadly rejects (such as adding unsourced and negative details to the biography of a living person) an impersonal message shows the concern comes from Wikipedia's broader standards rather than from me personally. I include detailed edit summaries when reverting, and if editors ask for clarification after a template message, I am quite willing to elaborate. In the template message I created for articles inappropriately nominated as Good Articles, I aimed for an impersonal tone that simply and objectively explains the issue.
Another situation where I use templates is welcoming new users. I have heard people say they appreciated the welcome templates as new editors, and research shows that the editors most likely to be reverted are IP editors and those with red-linked (nonexistent) talk pages, both possible indicators of a new editor. When I see a new editor with no talk page making constructive edits, I try to leave them a welcome template, typically the custom one in my userspace. The links in its sidebar are the ones that I have found to be most generally useful based on questions at the WP:Teahouse and HELP:DESK. Sometimes I simply leave the welcome template, and other times I will follow up with specific comments based on their edits that caught my eye.
Any time a revert is complicated, I will leave a custom and thorough answer. For reasonable edits that still need to be reverted, I typically post on the article's talk page to make clear that the issues are related to the article rather than personal. In cases where either the other editor or I may be confused, I'll often raise the issue on the article's talk page rather than reverting.
Optional question from RadioKAOS
17. Why should I take seriously anything I read on Wikipedia about respect for copyright or tolerating a minimal amount of non-free content when clearly, the default is to upload a non-free file rather than putting the effort into locating a free equivalent or even putting the effort into seeing what's already available on Commons?
A: I take it seriously. I've uploaded over a hundred files to the Commons: my own photos and infographics, public domain images, and freely licensed media. I've helped other editors upload public domain images. At DYK, GA, and FAC reviews, I've checked image licensing and flagged non-free images. I use media from the Commons and have adapted existing media for English Wikipedia including the map in Ottoman campaign against Hormuz and diagrams used in the welding article.

Discussion

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
  1. Oh finally I can be the first support on one of my RfAs!!!! Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  2. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  3. Ternera (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  4. Easy support, trusted nominators and fantastic answers to the questions. CoconutOctopus talk 18:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  5. Support definitely a great Wikipedia editor! His content creation work is awesome!! JuniperChill (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  6. Trustworthy nominators, I enjoyed reading Ívar Bárðarson. Polygnotus (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  7. Per CoconutOctopus. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  8. Looks good, has the experience. CNC (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  9. As nom, —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  10. Absolutely. Lynch44 19:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  11. Excellent content record, good judgement, demonstrated use-case for the tools. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  12. Content looks great; just read Night and it was indeed beautiful. Touchdown! NicheSports (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  13. Support: It's rare that a candidate has so capably contributed content in such controversial subject areas and has demonstrated such steadiness. It's especially rare to see the same editor have such a clear use for the tools. Good luck with the mop! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  14. Support, obvious and easy descision. -- Sohom (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  15. – robertsky (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  16. Zzz plant (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  17. Sustained record of good judgement; no concerns. Arcticocean ■ 19:44, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  18. Enjoyed watching this user work on Good article Rodney, Mississippi. jengod (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  19. Support. -- asilvering (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  20. Easy support! The linked "Roswell myth contributors" chart shows an exceptional dedication to sorting which content deserves inclusion. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 20:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  21. Support Consistently impressed with their contributions at DYK. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  22. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  23. Have seen the candidate around and only had positive impressions of their work and demeanor. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  24. Support - no concerns, and I like the candidate's answers a lot. Brat Forelli🦊 20:24, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  25. Support no concerns here, would be comfortable with them having the tools. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  26. I'm not familiar with this candidate so I checked a random sample of their contributions. I found nothing of concern.—S Marshall T/C 20:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  27. Support without reservation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:39, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  28. Support - Will be a net benefit. Let'srun (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  29. Sure charlotte 👸♥ 20:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  30. Support --Minoa (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  31. Support. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 21:17, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  32. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  33. Support SamuelNelsonGISP (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  34. Heck yeah! Toadspike [Talk] 21:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  35. They will make a great admin. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  36. Why not? UpTheOctave! • 8va? 22:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  37. Of course! Looking forward to having another half sibling :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:10, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  38. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  39. Support Good luck. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  40. Surprising amount of work, and I see his brilliant efforts in rewriting articles and having the exceptional amount of patience to do the proper research and sourcing. As nom has said, I am astounded by his work at Night ◎ 4, so support. HwyNerd Mike (tokk) 22:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  41. Happily! Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 23:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  42. Support – The work on Night and Roswell was impressive! I stand by my appraisal of their closure; I wish all editors took the same time and care to close discussions! FaviFake (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  43. Daniel (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  44. Support – Why isn't he already an admin?! Renerpho (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  45. Support This editor is clearly in need of the tools to assist with the fantastic work already being accomplished at DYK. Joyous! Noise! 00:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  46. Support - Trusted nominators, appropriate answers. Full trust. Good luck! — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 01:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  47. Support Elli (talk | contribs) 01:28, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  48. Support: No concerns! KuyaMoHirowo • he/him (DM me on Discord at kuyamohirowo (DMs are open!)) :3 01:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  49. Support would make a great admin… just get the mop already. Seanwk :) (Talk | Contribs) 02:06, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  50. Support Looks to be highly qualified. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  51. Support The candidate has done some incredible writing I was especially impressed at their listed best contribution it is a night and day difference. They also have a great record at afd with very detailed !votes and a high match rate. I have no doubt they will do a great job as an Admin. GothicGolem29 (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  52. Support Flip them bits. fanfanboy (blocktalk) 02:42, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  53. Support Excellent candidate. A 99% match rate at AfD that doesn't consist of pile-on votes, but is instead over multiple months is unheard of! Also gave a great answer to my question (5) and I respect that they started by first giving credit to their collaborators! I wish them well and look forward to hopefully interacting with them on the project in the future! 11WB (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  54. Support ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 02:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  55. Support. Passes my requirements. Also could've sworn I voted earlier. CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 03:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  56. Support, wow! Graham87 (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  57. Support: Seems like a constructive and competent editor. I also don't see anything negative about the editor. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  58. Support. Thanks for volunteering. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  59. Support and thanks for volunteering! --SHB2000 (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  60. Support. I am very satisfied with the nominator's responses, ranging from content creation to administrative duties. I mean, their contribution to Night is already impressive, but their explanation of the writing process is superb and in-depth (in fact, this gives me the confidence to rewrite Archimedes' screw, an article I've been thinking about for a while now). They can also handle disputes professionally and maturely, which is vital for an admin. All the best :) Icepinner 08:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  61. Support with no concerns. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:10, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  62. Support great to have admins with a variety of focus areas, including improving articles. Don't have any concerns. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  63. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 11:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  64. Support MCE89 (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  65. Easy support from me. We've interacted once or twice at FAC and elsewhere, and I've only good things to say. Will be great value, I'm sure. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:12, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  66. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  67. —Kusma (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  68. Support - looks like a great candidate and my hat's off to anyone willing to endure a week of wiki hazing MisawaSakura (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  69. Support - seems perfect for the job. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  70. Support - well-qualified, with good content and AfD work, and I'm impressed with the answer to question 8. Staraction (talk | contribs) 15:16, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  71. Why not? --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  72. Support - I don't see why not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  73. Support per noms. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  74. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  75. Support Such a well-qualified candidate! My only small quibble is that their (certain) appointment as an admin may lose the project a most excellent writer and editor as the multitude of needs requiring an admin might well begin to occupy much of their time. That's not a qualification of my support, just a small note of (potential) future regret for what might have been. C'est la vie, as the saying goes.Geoff | Who, me? 17:15, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
    They have stated they plan continue to write after becoming an admin so hopefully they will be able to do both if they wish. GothicGolem29 (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  76. per noms —Ingenuity (t • c) 17:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  77. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 17:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  78. Support - Solid candidate. They were also very helpful with my first DYK nomination. DraconicDark (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  79. Salvio giuliano 17:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  80. Support Stellar contributions to the project and thoughtful, well-written answers to the RFA questions. Steven Walling • talk 18:06, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  81. Support because of nominators, amazing contributions, and great answers to questions. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 18:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  82. Support Sure, why not. Trusted nominators, great contributions, good answers to questions. I especially like the answer regading LLMs. LightlySeared (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  83. Support Will make an excellent addition to the team. Schwede66 18:38, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  84. Support Fathoms Below (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  85. Support No concerns. Intothatdarkness 19:16, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  86. Support, with apologies to Rjjiii for any unwanted and unwarranted drama that being in the role might bring. BD2412 T 20:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  87. dbeef [talk] 21:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  88. sapphaline (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  89. Support Thank you for volunteering! YuniToumei (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  90. Support Clear net benefit. Gizza (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  91. Support. An easy one, their two FAs are plentiful evidence of their grasp of content creation in all of its multifaceted glory, while their aplomb during the FAC reviews - especially the opinion-magnet Roswell incident - clearly demonstrate the appropriate attitude. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  92. Support - although I believe WP:NOBIGDEAL, here is a case where there is a clear benefit to Wikipedia were this candidate to have the extra buttons. I don't find anything disqualifying the candidate. Not a jerk, has oodles of clue. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  93. Support Hi! HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 01:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  94. Support: Seems like a net positive. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  95. I've seen them around DYK and related areas. I don't have any cause for concern. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  96. Support. No concerns. Fade258 (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  97. Support. Bearian (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  98. Support based on the candidate's clear qualifications, their good answers to the questions so far, and my high level of trust and respect for both nominators. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  99. Support - no concerns. ~delta (talk • cont) 03:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  100. Support A content-focused admin 😍 JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 04:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  101. Support Of course. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  102. Support Having seen them around at DYK, it seems like RJJ has their head screwed on properly. TarnishedPathtalk 06:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  103. Support. Best wishes.. Volten001 ☎ 09:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  104. Support Plutus 💬 mess — Fortune favors the curious 09:38, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  105. Support I think Rjjiii will be a wonderful admin. Phuzion (talk) 11:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  106. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  107. Support. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  108. Support, no reason to think they'd abuse the tools. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  109. Had a positive experience with them, happy to voice my support 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  110. Support - looks good to me. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  111. Support will be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  112. Support – one of those "wait they aren't already?" cases. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  113. Support, no reason to think they'd abuse the tools. Guettarda (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  114. Support, though the username makes me a bit cross-eyed. Travellers & Tinkers (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  115. Support. No problems here! Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  116. Support Hey man im josh (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  117. Support Will be fine. Good luck! Fish+Karate 16:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  118. Support Tazerdadog (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  119. Support Nil🥝 18:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  120. Support Will be a great addition. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  121. Support. Not only do they do good solid work and low on conflicts with other editors, for once I can give unreserved support. They added significant content to the Blackberry article, which is a plant, making them officially a Plantipedia editor! No need to call out the Green Knight to cut off their head, its Christmas for... 🌿MtBotany (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  122. Support - No concerns whatsoever, a trustworthy candidate. Thank you for volunteering! Netherzone (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  123. Support - Had a chance to work with Rjjiii on Rodney, Mississippi. A quality contributor and someone I trust with the tools. Jordano53 21:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  124. Support Skynxnex (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  125. Support No concerns at all from me.-- Ponyobons mots 22:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  126. Support.—Alalch E. 22:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  127. Support. Good content and good procedural work at DYK. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  128. Support Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  129. Support Probably would have !voted this way anyway, but liked the answers to my questions. Daniel Case (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  130. Support I like your answers magic man. No concerns. Kline • talk • contribs 02:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  131. Support. Night is a very impressive piece of content work, and everything else in this nomination gives me the impression that the candidate is suitable for the mop. Sdkb talk 03:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  132. Support User comes across as smart, mature, skilled, energetic and helpful. Should be a good fit for the tools. Gatoclass (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  133. Suppport – Ammarpad (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  134. Valorrr (lets chat) 12:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  135. Support great to see more people applying for admin, especially such qualified and respected editors. Lovelyfurball (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  136. Support: Rossouw (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  137. Support ULPS (talk • contribs) 14:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  138. Support - Not a name I know, but after spending some time reviewing see no reason not to support and multiple reasons to support. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  139. Support – Why have these recent RfAs all been 100%? --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 20:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    Because of the quality of the candidates recently in my view. GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  140. Support, seen them around DYK, no issues. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋
  141. Support. I just went and read Night – what great work! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  142. Support No concerns Opm581 (talk | he/him) 01:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  143. Support ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 01:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  144. Good day—RetroCosmos talk 03:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  145. Yup!. Mkdw talk 07:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  146. Pile on support Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  147. Support Thank you for your work! Tvpuppy (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  148. Support - thanks for volunteering! —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 11:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  149. Support. Rzuwig► 11:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  150. Support Mox Eden (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  151. Support - great candidate, no concerns. Night was a wonderful read. GoldRomean (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  152. Support - best of luck Mujinga (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  153. Support Looks fair enough, I don't see any issues with the candidate. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  154. Support - great answeres to all the questions Ultraodan (talk) 10:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  155. Support. Excellent content work, including extensive DYK involvement. — Newslinger talk 13:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  156. Support -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  157. Support Andrew Gray (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  158. Support They're experienced enough in the areas they want to work on, and they also know where they're not sufficiently experienced yet (like AIV) which is IMHO equally important, so sure, why not. --KonstantinaG07 (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  159. Support - ScalarFactor (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  160. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  161. Support - More help is always appreciated, especially from users with great track records! This will help with the DYK backlog. GGOTCC 18:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  162. Support Oh no, I thought I responded a few days ago! Glad I got the !v in anyway before time's up. IAmChaos 21:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  163. Support User:Easternsaharaplease review this and this 21:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  164. Support Tenpop421 (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  165. Support. I'm late to the party, but I might as well pile-on. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  166. Support - No reason to question or oppose. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  167. Support Has credibility. No red flags that I can remember. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:20, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  168. Support Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 13:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  169. Seems trustworthy and sane. Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 16:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  170. Support 10 GAs, 2 FAs, and 9 articles created is not enough content creation to be an admin. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose


    Neutral
    1. Neutral From occasional glimpses at random pages, they seem like a good editor. However, nothing in the answers makes me believe they would be a good admin(or a bad one). Hence, a neutral vote. HSLover/DWF (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
    General comments
    • Happy to see another request for adminship so soon after the last(especially given how long there was between the previous one and the RFA before that.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)