Rjjiii (talk·contribs) – I'm very pleased to introduce Rjjiii for consideration. A strong content creator, he first caught my eye inWP:The Core Contest of 2024, where he won first prize with a beautiful rewrite ofNight. He now has 10 GAs and 2 FAs under his belt, including the collaboration at theRoswell 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 atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard (demon)). These are also skills that come in handy atDYK, 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)[reply]
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 ofNight, 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 afew jumbled under sourced paragraphs and spare trivia to anextensively sourced article bordering on FA quality– a literal night and day difference! The time RJ providesinto his work is truly impressive. This thorough mindset goes beyond article writing; Rj has considerable experience around AfD voting andtemplate 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)[reply]
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.
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 havepromoted over 200 hooks to DYK'sprep areas, written overa dozen nominations, flagged unresolved issues on approved DYK nominations, and responded to errors onthe 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 inover a hundred deletion discussions,closed dozens of Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussions, wasthanked for a merge close with a detailed closing statement, and have completely rewritten articles at AfD, likeInstagram face. MyAfD !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 atWP: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 wasonly a stub. While researching, I expanded the article and took it throughGood article,Did you know, andFeatured article reviews. I have10 GAs including some on broader topics, likenight which I rewrote during the2024 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, editorsreported issues on the older themes it was originally written for. A revert would not display theformer 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 theRoswell incident article up toFA 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 adetailed chart in the archives where I did a lengthy analysis of which conspiracy theories were covered by whichreliable sources in order to determineWP:DUEWEIGHT in the article.Theonly time I was reported to the administrator's noticeboard for incidents (ANI) was regarding theWestall UFO article, when a newer editor was attempting to add material against policies and guidelines. On the article's talk page, Icited and quoted the relevant portions ofWP:NPOV,WP:FRINGE, andWP: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 alimit oftwo 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.
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 withTwinkle andgeneric 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 atWikipedia:Dashboard#Requested_edits when there is a backlog, although there is usually a greater backlog for the template-protected requests. I have implementedstraightforward andcomplex edit requests on protected templates.
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/cartographerPiri 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.
6. Although this is my first time knowing you, I found that you have an amazing record of bringing articles to GAs, likeNight4. 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 withNight as an example, there's an excellent book for both sourcing and due weight on the "History" section: Roger Ekirch'sAt Day's Close. For the "Biology" sections, I ran into the issue where most booksabout 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 viaWikipedia Library for sources that were peer-reviewed althoughmore specific. MOS shouldn't be too different between broad and narrow topic articles, since it's meant to give consistency across the encyclopedia.
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 aneural machine translation system, and Grammarly alarge 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 theKitab-ı Bahriye article, I found that the AIcopied 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.
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 Icleaned up an article on a notable individual that seemed to be the result of someone running their notes through an LLM.
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 thepaid-en-wp@wikipedia.org email address and theWikipedia: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
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 thelead picture on your user page is aWoodie and I'm curious about that as my father had aUK 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 myCrown 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 didadd a few more of my own photos of places that spoke to my heart after reading your question.
12. This will be my second and last question. Recently, there has been claims of bias on Wikipedia by many news organizations, describing Wikipedia as left-ist. How would you describe the current status of bias at Wikipedia now?
13. Do you have any specific ideas for how to minimize the damage to Wikipedia from the use ofartificial 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 essayWP:LLM to mean that forms of AI use not explicitly banned are acceptable. Two solid steps in this direction are theWP: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.
Please keep discussion constructive andcivil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly reviewtheir contributions before commenting.
Numerated (#) "votes" in the "Support", "Oppose", and "Neutral" sections may only be placed by editors with anextended confirmed account. All other comments are welcome in the "general comments" section.
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)[reply]
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 atNight4, sosupport.HwyNerdMike(tokk)22:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support. I am very satisfied with the nominator's responses, ranging from content creation to administrative duties. I mean, their contribution toNight is already impressive, but their explanation of the writing process is superb and in-depth (in fact, this gives me the confidence to rewriteArchimedes' 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 :)Icepinner08:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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-magnetRoswell incident - clearly demonstrate the appropriate attitude.Gog the Mild (talk)23:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - although I believeWP: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)[reply]
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 theBlackberry article, which is a plant, making them officially aPlantipedia editor! No need to call out theGreen Knight to cut off their head, its Christmas for...🌿MtBotany (talk)20:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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?
.jpg){kind=link}