Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cactusisme 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a permissions request that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

• Result: Unsuccessful (1/7). Cactusisme, thank you for your work here. Please note that many of the opposes are based off of right now and some voters would like to see more time/experience, so please don't be disheartened. I would recommend waiting for a nomination from an existing administrator, as that is often the best sign you are ready. Thank you for volunteering, --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 18:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Cactusisme

Cactusisme (talk · contribs · count)

End date: 11:29, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

I’ve been active here for quite a while, mostly working on simplifying articles (one Good Article I helped promote is Dog), patrolling new pages (User:Cactusisme/QD log), reverting vandalism (undos and rollbacks), and helping new users whenever I can.

Lately, I’ve run into many situations where admin tools would be useful — such as deleting pages or blocking persistent vandals, including LTAs and block evaders. Often, when I’m editing, no admins are around, and sometimes there’s a fair amount of disruption or backlog that needs urgent cleanup. I’d like to be able to respond more directly in these cases.

My previous RfA (linked here) mainly did not succeed due to limited experience at the time — I had only been active for about three months. It has now been 11 months since then, and I’ve gained significantly more experience and insight into the project.

I’m happy to answer any questions or comments. Thank you for considering my request.

Candidate's acceptance: Self-nom

Support

1. I want to Support especially for your enthusiasm. This is also a moral support for you to continue your effort in what you do around Wikimedia projects. Keep editing, be cautious, while continuing to like and always improving your work. Ciao, M7 (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - I've had several interactions with Cactusisme that make me question their fitness for adminship. This conversation in particular is the one that I came back to in their archives. They made a non-admin close of an RFD after the nominator withdrew the RFD. Cactusisme only closed the RFD discussion; they did not go back and remove the RFD from the article or add the historical RFD banner to the article talk page. When I pointed out that they needed to follow all steps they said: "Hmm, I pretty sure I didn't have the time to do it, since we are all volunteers and the RFD tag is removed l, I don't see any issues." I also wasn't impressed with this discussion about a script that they made; they offered no real explanation as to what the script it and why we should want to use it. Other minor things like closing good article discussions early or inserting themselves into an unblock discussion and encouraging the use of AI to write unblock requests leave me feeling like they would not be able to handle the admin tools and the interactions that come with the community as an administrator well. Additionally, based on what I've seen in their writing at noticeboards and talk pages, I get the feeling that the answers to questions below are aided by AI and not genuine responses. CountryANDWestern (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
2.  (change conflict) Oppose I am sorry but I think there are many areas where I see that you need more time and experience. Not just in terms of editcount but in terms of actual understanding of those things. I was going through some changes and I saw this. 'Things' is a better word there as 'page' on simple can generally be misunderstood with article. Bolding words in the middle of sentences makes it very hard for people to read. Previous bolding are already causing quite a bit of problem for readers. This aside, I have observed many poor comments on RFDs from them. They improperly closed a PGA mid-consideration a while back from what I remember.-BRP ^ever 13:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose I am going to have to agree with the above user. I see issues with their interactions over time and I also have concerns that the below answers were ai generated replies. For this reason, I am going to have to say Weak Oppose Bobherry Talk My Changes 13:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
4. Oppose sorry but I think you need more experience so it's a NOTNOW, but I can see me supporting you next time provided you can address the above concerns fr33kman 18:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
5. Oppose per everyone above, On a few occasions the candidate has been borderline disruptive by commenting on things that don't concern them and when people reply saying why they shouldn't comment the only reply they get back is "ok" (I used to be the same but I realised I was beginning to be more of a hindrance than of help which is why I stopped), I'm also astonished they'd use AI to answer RFA questions of all things in the world!, The general lack of understanding is also a concern. All in all given my concerns and those above I cannot support this RFA at this present time. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:51, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
6. Oppose I was originally inclined to support this nomination, but I'm afraid issues brought to light above mean I don't (at this moment) think the user should have admin tools. Still, I hope they keep up their good work and continue to learn. --IWI (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
7. Oppose Agree with those above me, WP:NOTNOW.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 11:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Comments

Questions from Ferien

Hi Cactus, firstly thanks for volunteering, it's very much appreciated! I just have some optional questions for you.

1.  Question: You come across an article about John A. Doe. The article content is the following: John A. Doe (born 31 July 1987) is a British singer. He is well-known for singing Cacti in the Desert, which he won an XYZ Award for in 2023. The XYZ Award isn't really anything special, in fact if we look further into it this XYZ Award was actually given to him by his wife Jane B. Doe, but that's not mentioned in the article. The article is nominated for A4 deletion. How would you proceed?
2.  Question: A trusted editor in the community has been blocked with the reason {{checkuserblock-account}}. The community is outraged, with the trusted editor insisting they have only used one account and other editors and even admins joining in on the backlash. The explanation in the unblock request in front of you seems reasonable. How would you proceed?
3.  Question: Finally, which policies/guidelines would you change and why?

Best of luck for this RfA, --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 12:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Q1. If I saw that article, the first thing I’d do is check if it clearly says why the person is important. That’s the main test for A4 deletion — does it show the person is notable?

The only claim is that he won an XYZ Award, but if that award isn't well-known and was actually given by his wife, it doesn’t really prove notability. The article doesn’t mention that connection, which could also be misleading.

If I check and the award isn’t significant, I would support the A4 deletion. If I were an admin, I’d still double-check the award first just to be fair. If there’s any chance the award matters or someone might want to discuss it, I’d take it to RFD instead.

Overall, I’d stay calm and kind (see Wikipedia:Be kind) and explain in the deletion summary or talk page why the article doesn't meet the notability guidelines.

Q2. I would not unblock on my own.

As an admin, I would:

1. Refer the unblock request to a CheckUser.
2. Calm the discussion by encouraging editors not to speculate and to wait for proper review.
3. Request for checkuser to verify the users claim and proceed from there.

Q3. Most of our policies work well, but one thing I think could be better is how we explain notability and sourcing to new users. The rules like Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Verifiability are really important, but they can be hard for beginners to understand—especially here on Simple English Wikipedia.

For example, a lot of new editors try to write about local people, small clubs, or topics they care about. But their pages often get deleted quickly because they don’t realize they need reliable sources or that the topic has to be covered by secondary sources to be considered notable. Even though the rules are there, they’re sometimes too complicated or detailed for new users. Having a simpler guide with easy examples showing what counts as a good source or a notable subject would help a lot. It could reduce confusion and help new editors make better pages.

Another thing I’d like to improve is making Wikipedia:Blocks and bans easier to find and understand. Sometimes people don’t know why they got blocked or how to appeal, and clearer info could stop a lot of frustration.

Another big thing is that some of these policies are from en and may not currently follow our current ‘’ways’’. I would try to fix this also.

I wouldn’t make these changes on my own — I’d talk about them first on Wikipedia:Simple talk to get everyone’s opinion and build agreement (see Wikipedia:Consensus). Cactus🌵 ^{hi ツ} 12:47, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't see the need to pile on, as I think you do a lot of good work here. I just wanted to point out that as a general rule with A4 - or I guess with quick deletion in general - if we are having to go off-wiki to figure out what to do, it's not eligible for quick deletion. Any award can serve as a claim to notability. The claim doesn't have to be significant enough to pass notability guidelines on its own, it just has to seem important. A4 is a messy criterion and one that even existing admins can get confused over. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 19:55, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Question from CountryANDWestern

You say in your statement that there are times where there are backlogs that require "urgent" clean up. Can you give examples of what kinds of things require an "urgent" cleanup and what backlogs you have seen? CountryANDWestern (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks for the question. There are times when long-term abusers repeatedly make disruptive edits or add inappropriate content, such as explicit or harmful information, to pages. These situations require prompt action, including blocking the users.

  Unfortunately, when no administrators are available, these problems can persist for longer periods. Pages with explicit content may stay visible, which is not ideal for readers or editors even if oversight was requested.

  Having access to admin tools would allow me to respond quickly to these urgent issues by blocking repeat offenders and protecting pages as needed.

  Another one is the RFD backlog, where requests open weeks ago can pile if there is not enough admins to handle them. Cactus🌵 ^{hi ツ} 13:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Question from Bobherry

You mentioned that some of our policies are outdated and don't follow our current ways. What do you mean by this and how would you attempt to fix this? We do have WP:FOLLOW for this reason. Bobherry Talk My Changes 13:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks for the question! What I mean is that some policies on Simple English Wikipedia are copied from English Wikipedia but haven’t always been updated to fit how we work here. Sometimes the language or examples don’t match our community’s simpler style or our specific rules/regulations that we have.

  While WP:FOLLOW exist, we can rewrite parts to be clearer, shorter, or more relevant to our community’s needs.

  To fix this, I would start discussions on Wikipedia:Simple talk to gather input from other editors and admins. Cactus🌵 ^{hi ツ} 13:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

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 either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.