Staraction

(talk page) (159/9/1); Scheduled to end 01:13, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Monitors: Toadspike [Talk] 01:26, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Staraction (talk · contribs) – I'm incredibly excited for you all to meet Staraction, a sharp and dedicated editor who has been doing fantastic work and could do even more with a mop. She's been editing on and off since 2021, and really started to take off in 2024, racking up more than 22 thousand edits to date. Some of Staraction's best work is in anti-abuse, as evidenced by her hundreds of RFPP, AIV, and UAA submissions; it was a natural step from there for her to become an SPI clerk, and she's also branched out into closing CfDs and running a bot. With a mop, she'd be able to take both her own reports and others off admins' plates, use viewdelete in SPI behavioral analyses, and action all of her own CfD closes. Plus, she brings the same talent everywhere she goes, and she's never averse to lending a hand wherever she's needed and able.

Staraction's content bona fides are well-earned, too: A GA on John A. Tibbits, several FLs from the U.S. congressional delegations series, and several DYKs – including Lobster emoji, which I had the absolute pleasure to co-write with her (and we've got more in the works!). I and many others can personally attest that she has not just an excellent nose for prose and sourcing, but an upbeat demeanor and easy willingness to grow and adjust from feedback (although I still haven't been able to convince her that CS2 is terrible). She would be an excellent addition to the admin corps, and I hope you'll join me in supporting her. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:08, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination statement

It's hard for an administrator not to have interacted with Staraction, as she is very active and helpful in many areas related to Wikipedia administration: sockpuppet investigations (as an SPI clerk), categories for discussion, speedy deletion, you name it. A glance over the interactions on her user talk page will show how much her work has been appreciated. For example, she fixed a significant pain point for administrators by automating edit notice creation for the many pages covered by the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic; the prior manual process was tedious and repetitive.

I've been impressed by her diligence and her level-headedness when dealing with upset people. She also definitely deeply understands content, and is autopatrolled (new pages she creates don’t need new page patroller review) since late 2024. Her Wikipedia experience supports all the things I look for in a prospective admin: good treatment of others, deep understanding of content, and interest and experience in administrative-adjacent activities.

My response to her decision to run for adminship is: "finally". I think that echoes the feelings of many other administrators. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:02, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you to theleekycauldron and rsjaffe for your kind words; I gratefully accept the nomination. I have never edited for pay. I also control the accounts StaractionBot and StaractionTest, for automated edits and technical testing, respectively. Staraction (talk · contribs) 01:01, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: I work in anti-abuse, processing SPI cases and filing reports at noticeboards like AIV, UAA, and RfPP, often requesting action from administrators. With administrator tools, I would be the one taking action, removing a step from the process, and would use my experience to respond to reports from others. In addition to blocking sockpuppets and vandals, revision-deleting disruptive content, viewing deleted pages to piece together behavioural evidence, and using history merges to organise filings at SPI, I'd love to help out with some of the backlogs I've come across in other areas, such as processing closed discussions at CfD. I’m grateful to have supportive and experienced mentors to guide me in unfamiliar areas, and am excited to take my love for the community and its values even further.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The article I’m proudest of is John A. Tibbits, a 19th-century newspaper publisher and politician, which was the first time I'd done such a deep piece of research on such an obscure historical subject. I've also contributed to several DYKs and FLs, including Lobster emoji, partially within the scope of a contentious topic, and Colorado's congressional delegations, soon to be featured on the Main Page. I’ve helped reduce administrator workload, including at RfPP, where I automated editnotice creation for articles covered by the Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic and helped create an RfPP subpage for batch protection of articles. I am an active closer at categories for discussion; one tougher discussion I tackled was regarding Category:Artificial intelligence art, where, using my understanding of categories, I found a clean close to the discussion. As an SPI clerk, I've also done behavioural analyses for various sockpuppetry reports, including cases involving extensive spamming and POV-pushing.
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: When I’m challenged on a decision, I go back to basics. Upon being challenged on a CfD relist regarding additionally tagged categories, for instance, I evaluated my understanding of policy, then engaged in a discussion where I aimed to cooperate with and learn from the other editor. I prefer to prevent conflicts from escalating to sanctions, and find that a little bit of kindness, communication, and patience goes a long way, especially when it comes to new editors. One new editor I met while patrolling recent changes, for example, had been issued several warnings of increasing severity, and was on their way to being reported to AIV, but hadn't really been given a chance to understand the problem; some calm communication with the TA resolved the situation.

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 Jerodlycett
4. Why do you not consider WP:WWUS to be in violation of WP:CANVASS?
A: WP:CANVASS protects consensus-based discussions from undue influence by any outside force. WP:WWUS outlines a set of conditions for individual participation on Wikipedia that many editors agree with – a personal decision not subject to community consensus. It does not and should never call on signatories to influence any consensus-based discussions, and I would never agree to do so if asked.
Optional question from DragonflySixtyseven
5. When would you leave a personal message for a new user, as opposed to boilerplate?
A: In more complex cases, or when the editor has already been templated or seems particularly confused, I will typically opt for more personalised messages. Boilerplate template messages can be impersonal and distant, but are often useful in counter-vandalism; they comprehensively address many common issues and can be applied en masse without too much time investment. If I do leave a template, I tend towards the welcome templates (e.g. {{welcome-anon-test}}), since those come off as friendlier (example).
Optional question from Red-tailed hawk
6. What do you think the biggest personal challenges you will face as an administrator are?
A: Striking the balance between conciliation and pushing back will continue to be a challenge. I recognised early on that it is important to admit when I’ve made a mistake: to “err on the side of caution”, so to speak, but I’ve also begun to see that it takes strength to provide well-reasoned pushback to criticism, if need be, and that a reflexively conciliatory reaction is not always ideal. I'm fortunate to have met a group of trusted editors who can keep me honest and self-reflective, helping me resist the urge to apologise or reverse course before fully evaluating criticism.
Optional question from Daniel Case
7. Based on your experience at the noticeboards, some of the same noticeboards where I review reports as it happens, if you had the chance to designate one new contentious topic area on your own, what would it be?
A: I don’t think I would want to have the chance to designate a new CTOP unilaterally, since such a complex decision is beyond the purview of any single editor. The decision to establish a contentious topic area also certainly requires more effort to work through than is courteous to leave this question unanswered. I would instead work with the community to hash out and find consensus for such a designation.
That being said, I’ve noticed that discussions surrounding the national origins of food can be quite controversial while not being cleanly covered by the existing CTOP regime (e.g. regarding shaksouka, matcha, or baklava), and several relevant disputes have ended up at administrative noticeboards (e.g. boyoz @ ANI, agidi (bullet #2) @ SPI, tzatziki @ ANI, several @ ANI). Gastronationalism often plays a significant role in these debates and has a tendency to turn them disruptive; I would not be surprised if this topic was designated as contentious in the future.
Optional question from Leijurv
8. Let's imagine you are on an editing strike as per the pledge. While on strike, an editor asks you on your user_talk an WP:ADMINACCT question about an action you took pre-strike. Would you address it, or remain on strike?
A: In any scenario, I would address ADMINACCT questions promptly. Accountability concerns take priority over any other commitments. Also, I strongly oppose any use of the sysop tools to damage the encyclopaedia. A strike is the last resort option proposed by WWUS, and I hope it is never used. Supporting WWUS does not mean that I would unconditionally support striking over more moderate proposals for collective action.
Optional question from Tarlby
9. Here's a less seriöus question for you; what is the origin/meaning of your username?
A: I honestly just put two words together. Sorry to disappoint, but I am neither a breathtaking supernova nor a famous Hollywood actress.
Optional question from Robert McClenon
10. Do you have any particular thoughts as to how either you, as an administrator and SPI clerk, or the Wikipedia community should deal with undisclosed paid editing?
A: I imagine undisclosed paid editing is likely to remain a cat-and-mouse game for our community for the foreseeable future. We can, however, increase awareness about undisclosed paid editing, both for the general public (such as in making scam warnings more visible) and for our editor base. For instance, I’ll take this opportunity to bring attention to obfuscated spam links being added to articles seemingly for SEO purposes (e.g. note the |archive-url= & |url= mismatch at this edit sent to WPSPAM); if recent-changes patrollers keep an eye out for such suspicious behaviour, or more helpers frequented WPSPAM, we may be able to gradually discourage this form of undisclosed paid editing. Further, because undisclosed paid editing organisations have proven to be difficult to track, it may also be worthwhile to collaborate with WMF partners in tracking them and enforcing the Terms of Service.

Discussion

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review her 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. as nom :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:14, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. as Conom. Absolutely yes — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:17, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support! From her thorough analyses at SPI and diligent spam reports to her excellent content portfolio and careful CfD closes, Staraction is incredibly talented at everything she does. More importantly, she is kind, thoughtful, and someone who I know will do excellently with a mop :). GoldRomean (talk) 01:18, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Staraction is a treasure at WP:SPI, a quick learner who isn't afraid to ask questions or take on the hard cases. Actually, let me tell you a story: some time ago, I observed some unusual behavior, and ultimately blocked a group of Confirmed accounts as a result. This led to a tip that in turn led to a rather more extensive investigation - a strange and difficult case that reached back several years and across multiple wikis. I was concerned that the tip might have prejudiced my analysis, so I wanted to see what conclusions someone would make independently of the technical data and the context. There were two editors I'd had my eye on as potential SPI clerkship trainees, so I gave them the case to see what they would make of it. I then sat back and watched with delight (and, I confess, a bit of pride) as Staraction and her colleague, having been handed a few sockpuppetry tools, more or less reinvented sockpuppet investigations from first principles and brought the case to a close. (I had only to make reassuring noises every so often.) Which is all to say, Staraction is a natural. She has the skills, tenacity, and good sense to handle adminship's most complex tasks. Let's give her the mop and let her get to it. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 01:19, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support: In my forays around DYK and CT enforcement, Staraction has been consistently helpful, useful, and a wonderful editor to work with. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:19, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Staraction is kind, level-headed, and talented. As asilvering says, they are superb as an SPI clerk, and I'm sure they will do just as well as an admin. Giraffer (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. As a CFD admin, I strongly vouch for Staraction's CFD talents. I can't wait for her to demolish that backlog—and that's before getting to the many abilities mentioned by my friends Rsjaffe and theleekycauldron in their glowing nomination statements. Enthusiastic support! HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:22, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:24, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Enthusiastically. Staraction is a knowledgeable and genuine editor whose work stretches across many areas of this project, and who I'm sure will make excellent use of the mop. She's been a great help in my learning the basics at SPI since I joined as a trainee clerk. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 01:25, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. It has been an absolute pleasure to clerk at SPI alongside Staraction. She will make an incredible admin. MCE89 (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support She seems well trusted and well versed. Adminship is no big deal.--v/r - TP 01:29, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, of course. RoySmith (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Zzz plant (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Not a jerk, has a clue. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I love SPI people dbeef [talk] 01:57, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Rand Freeman talk ⬩ in solidarity 02:08, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I have seen enough of Staraction's work and I believe they will make a good administrator. Best of luck. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 02:15, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I remember when she started editing and now I feel old charlotte 👸♥ 02:17, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Yes please! Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:26, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support without hesitation. Diligent, careful, active, clueful, unfailingly collegial. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  21. —Ingenuity (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support very happily. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Someone is needed to consistently handle RfPP Batch. EaglesFan37 (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  24. * Pppery * in solidarity 03:21, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Mfield (Oi!) 03:32, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. No problems here! Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:35, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support TWO high quality RfA in this admin drought??? Why it must be raining! fanfanboy (blocktalk) 03:44, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - through my work at WP:SPI, I have no concerns. PhilKnight (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Strong candidate with strong nominations. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:04, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support per Thebiguglyalien. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:17, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, was impressed by interactions at this SPI; I particularly like the answer to question 3. Graham87 (talk) 04:21, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Sophisticatedevening(talk) 04:24, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support NicheSports (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  34. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 04:46, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, I cannot forgive liking WP:CS2, but I am willing to look past it due to the significant content contributions and the reason I know them for, their work at SPI. Serious talk, I think they will a really good admin especially at SPI, where I've spent a fair bit of the last few days actioning their requests. I have literally nothing bad to say! -- Sohom (talk) 04:53, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Friendly, thoughtful. Lova Falk (talk) 05:13, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. --Minoa (talk) 05:43, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support (can this be the start of a crustacean cabal? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 06:18, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support! In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:45, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Easy support! In solidarity, nil nz 07:38, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Best wishes. ~ Volten001 ☎ 07:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support She seems an ideal candidate. Works at SPI, a thankless task. Good on her. And an article writer. What more can you ask for. Well worth a hearty support !vote. I see TonyBallioni is back. Yippee!! scope_creepTalk 08:02, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support another excellent candidate. qcne (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. I am conviced by asilvering's endorsement and by the candidate's statement that "a little bit of kindness, communication, and patience goes a long way". I fully agree, and find this especially important behaviour from admins. GanzKnusper (talk) 09:06, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support, about time! CoconutOctopus talk 10:24, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - definitely! ~SG5536B 10:35, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Nothing but positive things to say about this candidate and I echo everything said above. I'll add my anecdotes from interactions with Staraction. Her work at Draft:Prayer circles in the NFL shows a high skill level of content collaboration, research, and writing. The batch page protection program (which she initially started from the ground-up in her userspace) and her follow-up bot task for AE edit notices and talk page banners, has immensely cut down on the manual admin workload for those who do mass AE protections, and has received nothing but glowing feedback from admins and arbitrators alike. I had strongly considered nominating, but chose to defer to others with more wisdom and experience in this area when I was (unsurprisingly) told she had other nomination offers. Left guide (talk) 10:44, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  49. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:55, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 11:00, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. From what I've seen at WP:SPI, Staraction is diligent and thoughtful. I appreciate her emphasis on "kindness, communication, and patience" above. Cadddr (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Based on nominators' recommendations. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support based entirely off the user's hard work at SPI, an area where we always need more hands. That's all I need to see. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 11:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support: I only have good impressions of Staraction, and we absolutely need more hands on deck over at SPI. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support thank you for volunteering. The opposes don't even make sense. Adding more admins would not in any way reduce capacity in the event of a strike or post-strike, on the contrary. ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Spoiled again with having two excellent candidates at the same time! Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Unconvinced by current opposes. Intothatdarkness 12:44, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support – They've done great work at SPI, and I believe they'll do great work with the tools as well. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Interacted at WPSPAM, obviously should be a sysop. I haven't really engaged much with the WWU stuff, but to those who see it as a reason to oppose, I would point out that Staraction clearly has enough clue that she wouldn't make a reckless admin action based on her views of the issue. Even if you think she's wrong, administrators are allowed to be wrong sometimes. lp0 on fire () 12:48, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support per noms. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. SamuelNelsonGISP (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support No concerns //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 13:14, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:51, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Staraction is one of the most active sockpuppet investigation clerks, and I have always appreciated her attention to detail and ability to present complex analyses in easily understandable comments. Having helped process investigations involving approximately 235 sockpuppeteers, Staraction has established a track record of excellent judgment and is consistently responsive to questions and feedback. Administrative tools would allow her to handle SPI cases more efficiently, as she would no longer need to wait for an administrator to review her evaluations. — Newslinger talk 13:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Why not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support No reason to expect tool abuse --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  68. 100% support! In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 15:08, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Absolutely. I'm not an SPI regular so I can't speak to her work there but Straction's spam reports have been top quality and I look forward to an extra pair of hands at WPSPAM. Anti-abuse admins are in short supply and I have no doubt Staraction will make an excellent addition to the ranks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:23, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Rolluik (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support! I (and many others) have already recommended Staraction go for the mop for some time, and I'm glad to finally see her here! I've worked with her here and there and have been impressed by her level-headed and hard-working attitude towards editing. She'll do great. —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support! toby (t)(rw) 16:20, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support: Strong candidate, will make good use of the tools. Prolific use of G5 tags over the past couple months as well, so having admin will likely help save a lot of work in cleaning up sockpuppet creations. ASUKITE 16:26, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Very qualified candidate! Parabolist (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  75. (edit conflict)Support for a thoroughly-qualified candidate. In solidarity, Miniapolis 16:58, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. Tazerdadog (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support the combination of SPI, CFD and content-creation work is a strong indicator of having the requisite know-how and CLUE to handle the thornier areas of admin work. signed, Rosguill talk 17:31, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Familiar with all sorts of useful tools and subject areas and will definitely make positive use of admin tools. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. Not worried about any kind of lobstruction here. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 18:33, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - no issues. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support: Without a moment of doubt, I have encounter her multiple times and she deserves the mop. In solidarity, Destinyokhiria (talk / cont) 20:33, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support ULPS (talk • contribs) 21:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support We need more admins! JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 21:18, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. Strong candidate who I would support in any case. In this instance, however, I am also supporting as a means to express my direct and wholehearted disapproval of (and disappointment towards) some of the rationale presented in the oppose section. WindTempos she/they (talk • contribs) 21:31, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Per @WindTempos. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:36, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support, looks good. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 22:08, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support kline / talk / contribs 22:39, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support: Thanks for volunteering! YuniToumei (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support The ludicrous opposes over signing a petition should be disregarded. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support – I've rarely interacted with the candidate themselves but their SPI and content creation experience speaks for itself. As for the opposers' rationale, my opinion largely aligns with that of UpTheOctave, detailed in their essay here. Best of luck to Staraction and thank you for volunteering! — 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:33, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Jianhui67 T★C 02:43, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:53, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. Fully qualified candidate. For those below, my thoughts are here. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 04:04, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Suport. I'd like to see a clear statement of how solidarity actions would affect admin tool use, but the responses given have allayed my concerns to point where I'm comfortable extending the trust. -- LWG talk (VOPOV) 05:07, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support No concerns. I might be mistaken, but this might be the editor who helped me with those Dutchy85 G5's. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 06:52, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:01, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  98. DatGuyTalkContribs 10:33, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support Rzuwig► 11:20, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support I had a brief conversation with Straction about a month ago about fair-use, and I found them very deligent towards the project. signed, Aafi (guesthouse) 12:42, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Counteracting at 1/3 (or 1/4, I can't recall the math these days) of a poorly thought thru oppose. Many are stretching the definition of "disrupting the encyclopedia" so far that, if we accept this definition, then actively opposing a good candidate to make a political point is much more disruptive than the passive behavior they're objecting to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support On the basis of the noms and other supports, and bluntly, to counter these nonsense opposes about WWUS. The idea that pledging some sort of volunteer editing stoppage would be a violation of ADMINACCT is wildly absurd. We are volunteers. We edit on our own choice. Becoming admin adds a basic baseline of activity to remain admin, but it does not obligate us to edit or take admin actions. If we're inactive in the capacity, we lose the bit, nothing more. We aren't sanctioned for it. And no one has even once said "I pledge to break Wikipedia policies and use my tools for harm". Everything about the pledge is wrapped in consensus building and policy-allowed actions. If we view "I'm not going to work while I'm unhappy with WMF actions, either individually or as a group" as disruptive in its own right, we've got bigger problems. Suggestions the pledge indicated the candidate would use tools against policy are frankly close to bad faith. -- ferret (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support: Looks like you no longer need to report vandals. --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 13:00, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support — In solidarity, Penn65 talk 13:33, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:38, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support Staraction would be a great admin! — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 18:14, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support Cicada1010 (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support because I think they will make a good admin regardless of my opinions about the pledge. S0091 (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 20:23, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support Opm581 (talk | he/him) 22:37, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support no concerns.🦅White-tailed eagleTalk to the eagleStalking eagle 01:15, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support no concerns – LuniZunie(talk) 01:25, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support. ShadowBallX (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Seems fine, and per Floquenbeam. —Kusma (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support Jordano53 06:35, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support—An excellent, well-rounded, and principled editor with the competence and experience required of administrators. Kurtis (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  118. sapphaline (talk) 09:58, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support. Clearly a strong candidate and an asset to the project. Chocmilk03 (talk) 10:08, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support mostly per the above.We could always do with new admins who have this nice combination of defending the wiki and building it. ϢereSpielChequers 13:09, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support No concerns. Fade258 (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support Tenshi! (Talk page) 14:10, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Good answers HerrHeulsuse (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support - my comments at MCE89's RfA also applies to here. ~delta {talk • cont • 🇰🇷 • 🎢} 14:42, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  125. 📎 JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 17:29, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Significant experience, and per nominators. Arcticocean ■ 21:44, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support: I made a mistake once closing a CfD and Staraction was extremely kind and helpful in fixing and notifiying what I missed. Clearly helpful. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support To The Oppose Argument: The basics of democracy is popular sovereignty, and striking is simply exercising our great anarchistic approach to self-governance. (I would even argue WP:POINT doesn't apply, as taking a step back is not active disruption. Even mass retirements have happened during, say, the Superprotect, WP:CanSanFranBanFram and AARoads incidents. I think it absurd to sanction someone who decides to retire. That is what the opposers are suggesting.) See also Letter from Birmingham Jail. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support Will benefit the project with the tools; trustworthy candidate. SpencerT•C 03:46, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support Has a clue and a need for the tools. Schwede66 05:59, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support TarnishedPathtalk 06:10, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support, no concerns. Nominators know what they're doing, and the nominee has a clue. ‑‑gurkubondinn 08:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support per candidate's answer to my question Leijurv (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support. Good candidate. Mariamnei ✦ reach out 🕊️ 12:03, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support. Evidently good candidate, no concerns on my part. I am, frankly, very troubled by the framing of support for WWUA as "obstructing", "harm", or "threats" to the project, "weaponiz[ation]", "hurt[ing] people" etc. I do not think the assumption of good faith is being extended, and it is a shame to see it affecting two solid RfAs. --AntiDionysius (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support The4lines |||| (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support, SPI and CfD are perennially backlogged - and CfD with an incredibly low bus factor. More administrators to list on WP:CfD/W is only a benefit. ScalarFactor (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support Candidate seems like a diligent and thoughful editor who I would trust to make appropriate decisions as an administrator Gnisacc (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support - nothing I've seen suggests that the candidate would abuse the tools. Guettarda (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support 1brianm7 (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support. A well-rounded and helpful candidate. For what it's worth, I'm skeptical of the proposed "strike", but I would never oppose someone's RfA on that basis. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support: Among other things (this candidate could help in a lot of places!), giving Staraction a mop would allow her to edit Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working instead of making requests on the talk page, which currently looks like this. The opposes based on her signature at Wikipedia:Wiki Workers United solidarity do not convince me that she would misuse the tools, especially after her answer to question 8. Regarding the one based on activity: Well, we all have different standards for that, but I think the candidate has displayed a high level of competence in the time that she has been active, so I'm not worried. Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support Whonting (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Staraction will make a great admin. Frankly, I am of the opinion that TBUA's oppose reflects more poorly on him than it does on Staraction, which is to say it isn't convincing. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support Staraction is great. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:07, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support OK, liked her response to my question (I think frankly anything subject to nationalistic edit warring should be a contentious topic), appreciated very much her script to simplify PIA protections, and a lot of good people vouch for her. As for the solidarity pledge (which, full disclosure, I too have signed) since it so far only asks us to ponder only doing necessary admin work for BLP and other contentious topics, I would not see such action as disruptive even if it were taken. I also do not see TBUA's logic in having voted for TS69's adminship while opposing these without giving us a fuller accounting of how they came to this thought process, and whether they now regret their !vote for TS. Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    TBUA answered that here, @Daniel Case. 11WB 💬 04:12, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support – seems to be a good candidate, and their support for WWU is no reason to oppose. --YodinT 10:27, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  148. No concerns from me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:40, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  149. No obvious red flags Giulio 14:13, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support Nice variety of things done, would benefit with these tools jolielover♥talk 15:56, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Oppose votes are totally unconvincing. --JBL (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support No major concerns for me, unconvinced by the opposes. LightlySeared (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support net positive. KylieTastic (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support on their record. BD2412 T 20:20, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support No concerns for me. Unconcerned about the opposes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:30, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support. I have read the opposes and they are without merit. This is a volunteer project; anyone may stop contributing temporarily or permanently at any time and for any reason they see fit. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:52, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support A diligent SPI clerk who could make good use of the tools. Obvious support. Cabayi (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support – Ammarpad (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support – It will not matter in a few days, but would have appreciated a note/statement/template on their user page signifying the SPI-Clerkhood. I wondered why they were posting in that section, eventually found a list of clerks.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 12:41, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose per the nominee's pledge to join a united effort in obstructing Wikipedia's functions at the beck and call of a separate organization. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    discussion regarding this oppose has been moved to the talk page -- Sohom (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per User:Thebiguglyalien. History6042 😊 (Contact me) 03:36, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose – User:Thebiguglyalien has expressed my concerns for me. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aesurias: Why are you neutral at the other RFA but opposing here? voorts (talk/contributions) 13:09, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per the above.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, reluctantly, but I can't support this without clarification as to if or how their pledge might obligate them to use the admin tools at the direction of an seperate organization.changed to support -- LWG talk (VOPOV) 05:01, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Would heartily support given a satisfactory answer to this concern. -- LWG talk (VOPOV) 15:26, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't. I would never sign a pledge to use my tools at the direction of an outside organization. I do not think that dozens of my colleagues would either. I do not understand how one can read the pledge that way. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:34, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @LWG; the candidate has answered question #4. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:48, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kind of agree with the other opposers here ... someone who is committed to basically go on strike when Wikipedia has issues really should not be in a position of leadership. Steel1943 (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Adminship is a set of tools, not a position of leadership. We don't have extra authority over other editors in the sense commonly understood as leadership. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 18:41, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Adminship is a de facto leadership position/right for Wikipedia that doesn't require direct WMF involvement. We don't need the risk of an administrator with a declared interest to disrupt Wikipedia if things on here go sour. It's akin to unions and union strikes ... which traditionally doesn't consist if those in leadership roles via the "employer". Same concept here. Steel1943 (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion unrelated to candidate. Giraffer (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins don't have the power to "lead" or boss other users around (in fact, we're not allowed to even use admin tools/status around in disputes in which we are involved!)
    Considering the petition itself, the most "disruption" that an administrator could cause is... not adminning at all, which, looking at the pitiful number of admins we have, is already the kind of disruption we're used to.
    We're also not affiliated to the WMF (the employer which the strike would target), so comparing this to an employer/employee situation doesn't really fit either. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 13:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins "boss other users around," so to speak, when they warn a user. And if the user doesn't do what the admin said -- doesn't heed the warning -- then the admin can throw the user off the website. If the user disagrees with the admin's decision, the appeal is often to another admin (e.g. unblock request). So, yeah, admins are in a position of leadership / oversight / power. In the same way that police officers and other authority figures are. Levivich (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone, admin or not, can warn a user. "Doesn't do what the admin said" is extremely vague: admins can't use their position in disputes in which they are involved, or as a way to scare other users into doing something. If you've seen admins trying to pull rank in that way (we have a whole essay about that), you're more than invited to report them to WP:AN, WP:ANI or even open a recall petition.
    In case a user disagrees with an admin action, Wikipedia:Administrative action review (which is open to the public) exists, and we have quite a few non-admins helping out with unblock requests. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 21:22, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "We're also not affiliated to the WMF..." Actually, that is somewhat incorrect since we wouldn't be here if WMF was not maintaining Wikipedia servers, etc,, in addition to ensuring the donation funds get allocated to the appropriate resources to keep Wikipedia running ... but if you had to state that, the important note of my point may have been missed. Steel1943 (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose: The bulk of their edits are from the past six months and activity before that was low. I don't think the level of experience (edit: or activity) expected is there yet. As an aside, I don't think WWUS is a valid reason to oppose (that doesn't mean I support WWUS). Regardless, this is WP:NOTNOW for me. 11WB (talk) 10:11, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    discussion regarding this oppose has been moved to the talk page -- Sohom (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sohom Datta, as I have many times in the past,

    I object to the practice of moving replies to opposes like this to the talk page without moving the description of the !vote itself. Per the talk page header, the discussions that should be moved there are those not germane to the candidacy. That applies to disruptive/badgering replies to opposes; it does not apply to legitimate responses. It should be stated for the record here — not on the talk page — that the responses to this oppose are germane to the candidacy, in that they seek to discredit this oppose's rationale. We should not be moving discussions to talk for the sole reason that they are replies to an oppose or that we want to reduce the length of this RfA, as that elevates the opposition rationale held by one editor over the rebuttal held by almost everyone else.

    Sdkb talk 03:03, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sdkb, I don't have any specific opinions for or against this. I do think the discussion in question had veered off into topics not germane to the candidacy which is why I moved it off into the talk page. I don't think though moving it back here is going to affect the outcome much and folks have a prominently placed to link the read the extended discussion if they want. Re, objecting to the practice that many times, maybe discussing it at WT:RFA might be useful - my understanding has been that moving the discussion but leaving the oppose behind has been fairly standard? Sohom (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Thebiguglyalien. Editors who pledge to disrupt the encyclopaedia to make a point (regardless of the merits or otherwise of that point) are not fit to be administrators. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose I do not feel they have satisfactorily answered my question to handle my concern over their pledge. Jerod Lycett (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Your question was about why the petition itself does or does not constitute canvassing. You didn't ask about any concerns you have about the pledge. What about the answer are you dissatisfied with? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:45, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per TBUA ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 17:31, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral

Neutral For now. Waiting to receive an answer on how off-wiki groups calling for action on-wiki would not be a violation of WP:CANVASS. Jerod Lycett (talk) 03:04, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jerodlycett; the candidate has answered question #4. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:48, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral per 11WB. Even though the candidate hasn't mentioned it as a area they wish to work in, I'd also like to see more contributions at AfD. Let'srun (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

It has been brought to my attention that the wording of my initial Oppose vote here may have hurt feelings, caused admins who signed WP:SOLIDARITY to feel untrusted, or caused people to suspect me of ulterior motives. I have written an essay to clarify my views on the matter, and I hope everyone here, including the candidate, will understand that I respect them and appreciate their work for the wiki, and that my actions are solely motivated by a desire to improve the wiki. -- LWG talk (VOPOV) 15:04, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@LWG: I don't see how the essay helps clarify anything re: caused admins who signed WP:SOLIDARITY to feel untrusted, if anything I feel like it make your position less defensible and muddy? The bad-faith assumption of "I don't trust you use to not use your admin tools to vandalize Wikipedia if WWU tells you to" remains. My understanding of TBUA's oppose is that it is along the lines of "if all administrators decide to stop work and performing basic antivandalism we are disrupting the project by proxy and putting that power in the hands of WWU is a bad idea", which while I don't agree with, is something I can sympathize with somewhat, however, your oppose seems to be centered around explicitly distrusting admins in general? Sohom (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Sohom Datta, I don't read it that way. The bolded section, in particular, is important. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded the final paragraph to hopefully make it clearer. My (former) oppose was based on a misunderstanding of the expectations WP:SOLIDARITY would place on signing admins, which has now been cleared up. I appreciate you all for the seriousness with which you defend your trust, and part of the reason I can continue to trust our admin pool is that I feel free to raise concerns like these. -- LWG talk (VOPOV) 19:39, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, now after doing some re-reading. Sohom (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that does help to clarify what you mean, at least. I'll assure you (and anyone), that my actions taken during a "strike" would be limited to just—stopping editing altogether and not doing anything at all. And we all have the right to cease contributing, temporarily or permanently, at any time and for any reason. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:30, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]


source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Staraction