Hello and welcome to my talk page! If you have a question, ask me. If I know the answer, I'll tell you; if I don't, I'll find out (or one of my talk-page stalkers might know!), then we'll both have learnt something!
Admins: If one of my admin actions is clearly a mistake or is actively harming the encyclopaedia, please reverse it. Don't wait for me if I'm not around or the case is obvious.
A list of archives of this talk page is here. Those in Roman numerals come first chronologically
This talk page is archived regularly by a bot so I can focus on the freshest discussions. If your thread was archived but you had more to say, feel free to rescue it from the archive.
October 2026 Administrator Elections – Voting Phase
October 13–19: SecurePoll voting phase (we are here)
Scrutineering phase
In the voting phase, the candidate subpages close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote has a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for a few days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a non-recall candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Recall candidates must achieve 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Latest comment: 8 minutes ago3 comments2 people in discussion
So a week ago you partially blocked me from WP:AIV for three months, something I didn't necessarily disagree with at the time. Since then I have read WP:Vandalism and reviewed the AIV report criteria in full. I see that while approximately 90% of my 800+ reports to AIV have been good report, some of the other +/-~10% reports did not meet AIV report criteria 1 (The edits of the user must be obvious vandalism or obvious spam), 2, and 3. While every one of my reports was a user who has clearly been disruptive, this is not the same thing as vandalism. I should only report disruptive (but not quite vandalism) accounts to which fall directly under the second half of report criteria 3 (there must be reasonable grounds to believe the user(s) will further disrupt the site in the immediate future), for example a user who has disruptively edited 20 different pages in 5 minutes, which is considered obvious spam. In some of my reports, the user/TA in question had stopped editing, so there weren't reasonable grounds for them to continue with their disruption in the immediate future there. Also, as for my reports of users with only one edit (insufficient activity to warrant a block under report criteria 2 for needing enough warnings except in egregious cases) which were declined, it was quite possibly just some teens messing around for fun, one edit isn't enough to assess their intentions. I should only report users with one edit for very egregious cases (e.g if someone inserted a long, well thought-out, egregiously bad paragraph with a clear, deliberate intention to defame someone or something. As for the issue of wasting admins' time, I am truly sorry for this. I realize that while administrators are reviewing the edits of plausible/invalid reports to determine if they should actually block, there could have for example been a vandal who committed egregious vandalism multiple times and should be blocked immediately, but the reviewing admin(s) are busy looking at the wrong or difficult to assess reports that the true vandal keeps vandalizing more and more, which inadvertently helps the vandals disrupt more pages/more times. So I am asking after about a week if I can be unblocked from AIV, I will review all contributions from every account I report to make sure they are 100% vandals, and in cases that may possibly be questionable, I will explain more in my user report summaries why they are vandals or spammers. I will re-check each of my reports to make sure my reports have not been declined and/or questioned (for which hopefully there will be no more of), I will make sure to respond to them ASAP. I do feel I can be unblocked from the noticeboard now as over the past week I have read and now feel I fully get the gist of when to report and not report users to AIV, much like when I did when I was blocked twice way back in the spring from UAA for shorter terms, I fully reviewed the criteria, and haven't been blocked since, I now fully understand AIV as well so can I be unblocked from it now (or perhaps have the block length reduced)? MakaylaHippo1998 (talk) 07:56, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
@MakaylaHippo1998 My main question is why it took a block to get your attention. I've declined multiple of your reports and pinged you several times, and I advised you of the problems with your reports a month before the block but you didn't reply or acknowledge my concerns, you just continued making problematic reports. You can understand my scepticism of your epiphany. HJMitchell|Penny for your thoughts?11:37, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
@HJ Mitchell the reason I didn't respond to most of the declined reports was because the declined reports were clerked out of the AIV notice board, I just don't see a point in arguing this off-noticeboard on talk ages but if you say so I can start doing this with declining admins or other skeptical users when unblocked from the noticeboard. One issue that I am willing to fix is re-checking the noticeboard a short time after each report to make sure my vandal reports were good reports. Over the past few months I try to respond to every talk page message I can now (unless its clearly from a vandal), I just forgot about this one, which should have been a priority considering the escalation, sometimes I may forget things after an entire month. If I am unblocked early, I will try and limit my reports to only a few per day, and only report on extremely obvious vandalism and spam and vandalism past final warning. Again, I'm really sorry for not heeding to your concerns about reports, but can my block maybe be reduced in time to two weeks or one month, three months is slightly excessive in my mind? MakaylaHippo1998 (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
