Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Candidates/Sahaib

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of an administrator election discussion that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

The candidate withdrew during the discussion period. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Sahaib (talk · contribs) - My name is Sahaib and I'm from Scotland. My Optional RfA candidate poll on 12 April 2025 was very useful and I have taken on the advice of users User:Thebiguglyalien and User:Femke by making sure I always leave an edit summary (by updating my preferences). User:Maliner suggested that I could be a admin in December 2024 and I have received some thanks from other users which I believe is a small indictor that I have made an overall positive contribution to Wikipedia since I joined almost five yers ago. These days, I edit Wikipedia basically every day and will continue to do so even if this request fails because I very much enjoy creating pages, editing articles, participating in discussions, etc. Points of criticism would likely include my decision to self-nominate myself (based on previous RFAs I have read) and this recent interaction with User:FarmerUpbeat which I myself stated was quite passive aggressive in the RFA poll (especially when they were acting in good faith, so I would like to apologise to them). Also my failed request to be an administrator on Wikimedia Commons in December 2024 (I have since taken on the advice of User:Abzeronow and have ensured that I always notify users of copyvios). I will probably attempt to become an admin on Wikimedia Commons again sometime next year which could be seen as Wikipedia:Hat collecting but I would say that I'm about as active on Commons as I am on Wikipedia. A user asked me some insightful questions, before the discussion phase, which can be seen at User talk:Sahaib#Interested in Voting for you as an Admin.

Thanks everyone for the kind words and constructive feedback. I have changed my mind, I don't wish to be an admin, not now and not in the future. For me, Wikipedia has always been about content creation, it sounds cringey but Wikipedia has given my life purpose when real life is too much. As someone who has had mental health issues, anger issues and social anxiety for basically my whole life, I realistically was never going to be a good admin, unfortunately I "can't grow up" (what people in real life say), autism is with me for life. On the bright side, at least I got something to talk to my counsellor about next week. :) Sahaib (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nomination.

Please disclose whether you have ever edited Wikipedia for pay: I have never edited Wikipedia for pay.

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 could help out in various areas. For example I could help out at/with Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incident, Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, Wikipedia:Speedy deletion, Wikipedia:History merging, Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, etc. I believe that I have a good understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines and have proven myself to be a trusted user. The amount of time I spend on Wikipedia, shows in my opinion, that I would be a very active administrator and wouldn't just do nothing. I have learned from mistakes and improved my editing abilities massively over the years.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I have created two good articles Travis Ludlow and Money (The Drums song). Politician articles I have created include Tim Johnston (politician), Thomas Kerr (Scottish politician), Charlton Hunt, Babacar Diop (politician), Djibril Sonko, Temmy Shmull, Amer Ghalib, Speedy Mashilo, Salvador Ondo Nkumu, Michael Owens (politician), Troy Edgar, Emais Roberts, Yukio Shmull, Jackson Ngiraingas. Some other interesting articles I have created include 1943 Football League War Cup final, Ben Phillips (YouTuber), Fede Vigevani, James Smart (police officer) (I went to Edinburgh to access a book that wasn't online), Sydney Agudong, Benjamin Wallace (writer), 50 YouTubers Fight for $1,000,000, Boost!, Ibedul succession dispute, Lego Masters (French TV series), Paraguay at the 2020 Summer Paralympics, State visit by Elizabeth II to Russia, Sayyid Abubakr bin Shaikh Al-Kaff, Spearfishing at the Micronesian Games, Better Off (Alone, Pt. III), James Borja, Fireboy and Watergirl and Toy unboxing. I have also made significant edits to many articles I didn't create like Fred Thomas (British politician), Davy Russell (politician), Mzoli's, Boost Drinks, Julie Thomas (politician), Lion (chocolate bar), Inveralmond Community High School, Timor sparrow, Julian McMahon, etc.

Other than articles, I have created many disambiguation pages, categories, redirects, participated in discussions (e.g at WP:Vital articles), reverted vandalism (and warned users on their talk page), etc.

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 was blocked by User:NinjaRobotPirate less than a month after I joined Wikipedia for 31 hours because I kept adding the birth date of Jamie Borthwick without a source (I found it on the internet). I dealt with it by educating myself on Wikipedia's guidelines and nowadays I constantly cite these guidelines in discussions and edit summaries. I was under the age of 18 when I joined, so edits made back then are not really representative of my editing abilities but I obviously still take responsibility for all my edits.

A much more recent incident was when an ip continually harassed me both in English and another language just based of my user name. I dealt with it by reporting it to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and the ip was blocked.

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 4 section headers, not bold face. (4 equal signs)

Optional question from Ganesha811

4. Are there any areas of adminship you do not plan to participate in, due to unfamiliarity or lack of technical knowledge? If you later decided you wanted to help in these areas, what would be your plan to become an effective admin in those areas?

A: I have made very few edits at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, so I wouldn't really know what I'm doing. To become better informed, I would read sockpuppet investigations. Also at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, I would similarly look over the listings of possible copyright problems and figure out how I would properly respond. Sahaib (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from SunDawn

5. You have been blocked once in 2020, but you received more warning for vandalism in 2021 for stating that Taiwan is a state instead of a country. Would you commit to be unbiased in the future?

A: The context behind that is that prior to making that edit, I had watched a YouTube video stating that it was not a country. Based on the date (January 2021), I'm 90% sure it was a video titled Taiwan is not a Country (even if you wish really hard) by Nathan Rich published in November 2020. I then compared it to articles like Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic which is described as a state (nowadays I am fully aware that Taiwan and the SADR are in completely different situations with the SADR not controlling most of the land it claims but back then I just saw all of these places as the same without any nuances) and decided to be WP:BOLD despite the hidden text stating that I was very much going against consensus that had already been reached. There is a response video titled Taiwan is a Country (even if you wish really hard it wasn't) by laowhy86 which I wish I saw prior to making that edit. I was 13 when I made that edit. I didn't want to reveal my specific age, but I believe it gives better context, I wasn't someone with an anti-Taiwanese bias, I was an impressionable teen who wanted to correct what I thought was incorrect. Like I already mentioned in question 3, my age is 100% not a get out of jail free card, part of me wishes I didn't join Wikipedia at such a young age (prior to joining Wikipedia, I made edits to Fandom) but in the end these mistakes have only made me a better Wikipedian. As already mentioned in the question on my talk page prior to the discussion phase, I recently created two Scottish politician articles from opposing political parties: Davy Russell (politician) (technically didn't create this page, it was a two sentence stub before I edited it) and Thomas Kerr (Scottish politician). Prior to that I have been creating politician articles for years as well as making somewhat substantial edits to them like Fred Thomas (British politician) and Michael Shanks (politician). I don't shy away from including controversies (an example being Temmy Shmull) but I ensure that anything I do add is reliably sourced and doesn't criticise or praise the person in Wikipedia's voice, it just states the facts. I believe from the many edits I have made since January 2021, I have already shown that I am a capable unbiased editor and will remain committed to ensuring that pages follow guidelines like WP:NEUTRAL in the future. Sahaib (talk) 09:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that by looking at my contributions by month, the month with the least edits is February 2021 with just 1 edit. This is no coincidence, I took the warnings to heart and basically had a 4 month break from editing Wikipedia (excluding edits to my own user page). If anything, this is evidence that even back then I cared deeply about editing Wikipedia and that I very much did not want to be blocked. Sahaib (talk) 10:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Fade258

6. As a content creator, How will you tackle the growing problem of using AI in content creation?

A: I know of WP:Signs of AI writing, if an article's language is promotional and filled with MOS:PUFFERY then I fix it to ensure that it just states the facts. I also verify that the sources actually verify the information as I often find that the sources only include part of what was stated. I also ensure that unreliable sources are removed whether it be tabloid newspapers, blogs or even Wikipedia itself. AI can be quite ominous, when I was at school I knew of some people who used ChatGPT to help with homework or essays because they couldn't be bothered with doing it themselves. I would say compared to others in my generation, I don't use AI very much. I contribute to discussions at WP:Vital Articles and I have occasionally asked ChatGPT for its opinion before I make a suggestion, for example I asked it whether or not Ann Dunham is vital enough for Wikipedia in terms of WP:Vital articles and ChatGPT agreed with me that they were not vital enough and explained why. I was transparent with other users and mentioned that I had asked ChatGPT for its opinion because I didn't know much about her vitalness in anthropology and the subject was removed with 3 other users supporting and 0 users opposing. The point I'm trying to make is that AI can be beneficial to Wikipedia when the right measures are taken e.g transparency and taking any information given with a massive pinch of salt. Sahaib (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from BusterD

7. Thank you for putting yourself forward as an administrator candidate. In what situations, if any, do you believe an administrator should invoke ignore all rules when justifying the use of advanced permissions?

A: That's a good question. Off the top of my head, one particular situation could be an admin deciding to block a user immediately who is continually WP:DOXxing users in a short span of time but the user uses a different account and claims that it was unintentional for some convoluted reason and so they should not have been immediately blocked in the first place. Most admins would likely agree that it was the right decision because to them it was obvious that the user was WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia and was lying so that they could be unblocked. Some admins may argue that even though the reasoning was convoluted, it was still somewhat plausible and so they should not have been immediately blocked without being given a warning. In response, WP:COMMONSENSE may be cited when discussing whether it not the user was intentionally doxxing people or not. Sahaib (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

8. Since the last admin election, the community has authorized and established a recall process. How has the addition of the recall petition affected your choices when choosing to run for the mop?

A: If I'm being honest, not much. I may be a bit too overconfident in that I can't really imagine myself being recalled if I were to be an admin as Wikipedia is in many ways an important part of my life. Obviously there will be times where I will be less active but I wouldn't disappear for 10 years and then claim to still know what I'm doing as an admin. Sahaib (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from CosXZ

9. How would you address a good faith editor who made a honest mistake?

A: There is a rollback (AGF) button which can be clicked instead of the normal rollback or vandalism buttons. Instead of using the warning templates, I start a discussion either on their talk page or on the articles' talk page depending on what their mistake was. If it was a minor mistake like a typo, I would simply fix the typo and note that in my edit summary without a discussion. The learning curve on Wikipedia can be quite steep for new editors, so it is always important not to WP:BITE newcomers. Experienced editors also make honest mistakes and it's important not to belittle them over it. Feel free to ask follow-up questions, if you think my response is too short. Sahaib (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sahaib your response is clear and good sized. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 17:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate that. Sahaib (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Femke

10. Last April, your GA nomination was de facto quickfailed (Talk:Naħseb_Fik/GA1). Looking back at this, is there anything you would have done differently in terms of GA prep, offering more mentorship to the reviewer (in additional to this feedback), or flagging the review at WT:GAN?

A: I like most editors want to get as many articles to GA as possible, I currently only have two (three if you count my contributions to Mzoli's to ensure that it kept its good article status along with several other editors). Even if a good article nomination fails, the nomination usually provides feedback on how the article could be improved (like at Boost Drinks). Looking back, I should not have nominated that particular article in the first place, there are certain articles that will unfortunately never get to GA status due to the quality of sources. Compare this to Money (The Drums song) which despite not charting as high was much better covered in reliable sources and so I was able to get it to GA. My response to User:Pichemist was ~~quite unnecessary~~ but I had waited 6 months for a review, so I was a bit frustrated. What I would do differently next time is ensure that any article I nominate for a GA review could realistically get to GA status based on the reliable sources available and when I feel frustrated ensure that I take a break from editing in relation to what caused the issue. As mentioned, I appreciate the emails you sent me. Sahaib (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that the next time I feel a GA review was not done properly, I would bring it up at WT:GAN. Sahaib (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pichemist seems to have gotten the hang of GA reviews (for example at Talk:Invasion of Gozo (1551)). I'm just pinging them to let them know that their review of Naħseb Fik was flawed (see Femke's comments in the discussion section) which I don't think they realised at the time. Sahaib (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Carrite

11. What is your perspective on Artificial Intelligence (AI) as it relates to Wikipedia?

A: @Carrite: I basically answered this question in #6, feel free to ask me a different question thanks. Sahaib (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Let'srun

12. How would you handle a situation where a user accused you in good faith of being WP:INVOLVED?

A:

Discussion

Links for Sahaib: Sahaib (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Edit summary usage for Sahaib can be found here.

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

Please do not cast votes or issue any declarations of support/opposition here. This section is for neutral discussion. Voting will take place using SecurePoll from 23 July.

WP:AFD notes: n=87, but <10 !votes in the past year. I read all of those AfDs and am left with little to say about this candidate. -- asilvering (talk) 02:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That block happened five years ago. Usually enough time to pass for an experienced user to not get into trouble again. One thing I will mention is that in the Optional RfA poll, Thebiguglyalien suggested you put in consistent edit summaries, and it seems like you've taken that advice very much to heart. Conyo14 (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sahaib/I don't know what essay to write is a pretty strange subpage that Sahaib was editing up until 2024. As of last week, this page was quickly redirected back into Sahaib's main userpage as soon as this AELECT nomination went live. This seemingly-kneejerk BLAR has led to some oversights on Sahaib's part, as there are now "random" Wikipedia shortcuts which redirect into Sahaib's main userpage, including Wikipedia:IDKWETW and Wikipedia:Arthur Balfour. Wikipedia:TDL TDL also redirects into Sahaib's userpage based on one of Sahaib's BLAR'd to-do lists in userspace. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the userpage, it's not like anything there was egregious. Deleting a userpage is at most their decision and really shouldn't be taken at face value unless something vandalous was occurring. Conyo14 (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The contents of the "essay" I find strange/unbecoming, but not something I intend to delve into here. The fact of the matter is that as recently as one week ago, this candidate made two BLARs without taking the proper care to ensure that the dependent pages of each were also dealt with. A cross-namespace redirect for the name of a UK prime minister Arthur Balfour in Wikispace, pointed to a userspace essay that mentions him in passing, already has dubious utility as an astonishing target. But not cleaning up their own created redirects post-BLAR shows carelessness within these July 10 BLAR edits. Making these edits while standing for adminship is not confidence-inspiring that they would be careful with their redirects as an admin. (Disclosure: I've taken puny god to RfD earlier this year, another one of their redirect creations, where they stood as the only keep !voter against 5 delete !voters besides myself.) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Utopes: I already discussed this essay in a question on 14 July 2025 that was on my talk page prior to the discussion phase at User talk:Sahaib#Interested_in_Voting_for_you_as_an_Admin. question 3. I will copy what I wrote there to make it easier "I once attempted to make my own essay here years ago before redirecting it. It is quite cringey looking back on it, if I were to summarise it with different words it was basically about dealing with feeling like an outsider on Wikipedia due to there being more experienced users. I have since come to realise that There is no "cabal", anyone can make a difference." The essay was a product of its time, written when I was 14 and in no way reflects who I am as an editor any more. I totally forgot about the redirects to the page or the other one and just assumed that there were no redirects to them and I apologise for that oversight. Back then I didn't have a good understanding on how redirects work, but now I do. According to XTools, I have made 42,853 (Semi-)automated edits using Capricorn and 20,193 (Semi-)automated edits in terms of redirects redirected. I know that edit counts are a bad way of measuring someone's contributions but in this case it shows that I do have a good understanding of how redirects work or I would have had thousands of talk page messages just about redirects I have created. Sahaib (talk) 09:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also the puny god redirect was created a long time ago as well. I don't know the exact date because it was deleted but I'm almost certain that it was created in 2021 (or possibly in 2022). I redirected it to a page where it was mentioned, then a different user redirected it to a different page where it was not mentioned. Sahaib (talk) 09:59, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I admire you as an editor Utopes and I hope that any ill will can be resolved here, thanks. Sahaib (talk) 10:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're a great editor as well who has done a lot for the project, for what it's worth! And hey, you have two more WP:GAs than I do, so that definitely counts for something. Wikipedia is a project that has a lot of moving parts, and as an admin you will be in a position where you have to make, say, deletion decisions that could have a rippling effect on other pages elsewhere on the site. All edits will have to be made with care and diligence to ensure that nothing is broken as a result. Mistakes happen, we've all made them, and I hope you utilize this tip about BLARs in your future as an editor, but this month is basically as close as we're going to get to what admin-edits could look like. If you can commit to doing diligence before every edit, i.e. not edit-padding on any page (especially in mainspace), then I could see myself supporting a Sahaib candidacy. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 17:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the answer to my question shows that Sahaib still has some areas to grow in. The quickfail was not appropriate, for the editor claimed that the article didn't have inline citations, a reference section or an image, all of which were false (reviewed version). I'd like admin candidates to be able to stand up for themselves, mentor other users when they require mentoring, and flag issues with low-quality reviews to the appropriate noticeboards. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Femke: My response was not the best as I was editing on the go on mobile, so sorry about that. I didn't see this comment until after adding my additional comment where I did talk about WT:GAN but I know there is no way to prove that. I get that I do need to stand up for my self as I'm a bit overly apologetic. If I did run again, I would ensure I resolve all the issues raised here. Sahaib (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Sahaib has filed an ANI request about a voter guide that mostly recites a list of self-disclosed facts [1], and automatically assumes bad faith is extremely troubling. Readers can judge from themselves, but for me, to state that an editor "presumably" implied something horrible without even a whisper of real evidence is a blaring red siren. A hair-trigger bad faith alarm is a dangerous thing for an admin to have. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CoffeeCrumbs: see here there is multiple instances of this user personally attacking Wikipedians. Sahaib (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except that's not what you filed about. You made an ANI posting about an attack on yourself that would require several giant leaps of logic and assumption to reach such a conclusion. And when other people didn't see it that way, you went and searched the editor's history off-site for "other" things to make a WP:COATRACK a complaint. Do you intend to enforce WP:BADSITES if made an administrator? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Active admins get much worse. Conspiracy theories, doxxing, harassment, and bonafide stalkers. Sorry, it's been a rough time, though, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the quality of their arguments (i.e. two otherwise identical English names with slightly differently spelt first name being the same as people having different names in different languages) then they will not be a good admin. Giant Snowman 16:35, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I understand the scenario raised in response to question #7 from BusterD. Basically I don't understand in the convoluted answer what the doxxing-user's second account is supposed to be, and how this is an IAR scenario. Users are expected to have a single account, unless they have a legitimate reason not to. If the user is abusively using sockpuppets to doxx people, you block both accounts -- good hand/bad hand accounts are not allowed per policy; and Policies apply per person, not per account. But then the answer goes on to describe what sounds like a scenario where when most people would assume the user is lying, you assume they're not? That sounds more like that there's a consensus in an active discussion about user conduct to me that you disagree with. Where is the IAR here? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:50, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.