Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chaotic Enby

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JuxtaposedJacob (talk | contribs) at 00:44, 29 October 2025 (support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Chaotic Enby

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (153/0/0); Scheduled to end 17:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Monitors: theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)

Nomination

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) – RFA participants may be forgiven for thinking that Chaotic Enby is already an administrator: such is the breadth and depth of their contributions to Wikipedia. They have done robust content work, including producing three good articles and a handful of did you know and in the news entries: my favorite is the delightfully named Skeleton panda sea squirt. They have done careful and diligent maintenance work in areas as diverse as cleaning up LLM-generated contributions, patrolling new pages, and implementing technical move requests. And they have a track record of innovative contributions to technical areas, including twinkle and the unblock wizard (more about that from L235 below). Chaotic Enby has shown themselves to be a thoughtful and considerate editor whose wide-ranging knowledge of policy is balanced by their humility. They would make a valuable addition to the admin corps, so I hope you join me in supporting them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Co-nomination statement

I have been excited to nominate Chaotic Enby for quite some months now! Deeply talented, passionate, and dedicated, Chaotic Enby will make a fantastic Wikipedia administrator.

The thing I most admire about Chaotic Enby is that they have a unique knack for identifying where their blend of technical talent and deep project experience can be best applied to great effect on Wikipedia – and then making it happen. Vanamonde has mentioned several examples above, but the one I want to highlight in particular is the unblock wizard, which is a tool CE developed to guide blocked users in the unblock process all the way through to posting well-structured appeals. Having worked in the background with CE on the wizard as the intadmin posting the script on their behalf, the speed with which they went from thinking "hey, the unblock request process could probably be more user-friendly", to "I should consider writing a tool to fix that", to "I’ve got a prototype ready to go", to "it’s live now" was awe-inspiring at every stage. (Doubly so given that the unblock process’s UX problems are primarily experienced by blocked editors – not the folks usually clamoring for better tools!)

This was just one example of CE’s general disposition to notice problems and then address them, another example of which is, of course, WikiProject AI Cleanup, which CE played a huge role in founding. More broadly, CE is a great communicator (just scroll around their talk page archives), they’re unafraid to change their mind, and they’re very enjoyable to work with. I offer my highest recommendation for CE’s adminship. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. I have never edited for pay. My one previous account is disclosed on my userpage. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

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: Working on unblocks is certainly where admin tools would be the most helpful for me. I have regularly given advice to blocked users on what is expected of an unblock request and how to give reassurances to the reviewing administrators. Without the tools, I can only go so far, and, it could help to be able to unblock editors who have given credible reassurances or agreed to unblock conditions. Beyond that, I often encounter situations when working in AI cleanup and new page patrolling where the tools could have been beneficial, from processing G15 speedy deletions to comparing deleted versions of pages. In The News is also a venue I could readily help in, as blurbs often languish waiting for an administrator to action them.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am proud of my role in creating the WikiProject AI Cleanup, and of the part I played in shaping policy discussions about AI, from writing an AfC decline message to contributing wording to the G15 deletion criterion. This also led me to familiarize myself with edit filters – of which I would like to highlight the collaborative work on Special:AbuseFilter/1341. On the technical side of things, I put a lot of work into the Unblock wizard, which supplemented the work I and others have done to guide users in their requests. Besides that, I currently have three Good Articles on my roster. Between them, I have a soft spot for Apex (dinosaur), which I can't wait to expand more once ongoing research gets published!
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: Wikipedia does throw up stressful situations, but I usually try to detach myself from the more heated aspects of a dispute, by focusing on the specific policies at play, and often disengage from more sprawling conflicts. I once found myself in a delicate situation while mediating a dispute in the ACAS topic area. Several editors asked for advice on my talk page, and I helped them navigate a tough discussion while avoiding any further flare-ups. As one editor was topic-banned, I helped mediate an agreement between them through a voluntary pause in the discussion for the duration of that editor's ban, encouraging them to learn by editing other topics, and subsequently guided them around edge cases while assuming good faith from my fellow editors.
A case where I was more directly involved was a dispute around WikiProject Baronage of Scotland, which was being run from a user sandbox and involved some amount of off-wiki decision making around mass page moves. The situation culminated in a heated ANI thread, where I worked the editors through relevant policies and guidelines about WikiProjects, decision-making and copyright, while taking care to not engage myself in a spiral of conflict.

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 CREditzWiki
4. Why are you choosing to run now, and not in elections in a month?
A: I am very happy that both methods are now available, as they provide different paths that can be more comfortable for different kinds of candidates. I myself prefer the shorter process of a regular RfA, and also appreciate it providing more direct and in-depth feedback from which I can learn, and which I welcome heartily.
Optional questions from GothicGolem29
5. I see you are quite involved in cleaning up AI so I wanted to ask what if any changes in policy on AI do you think would be beneficial?
A: Just like AI models themselves, the topic of AI policy is complicated and evolving. Generative AI has been a major issue for Wikipedia in the past two years, from peacock writing and subjective inferences to completely hallucinated sources, but I do not exclude a future in which, 5 or 10 years to now, we could see positive contributions from newer models, and we should keep in mind that policies are not intended to be static.
To clarify, I am talking here about generative AI specifically. Other kinds of machine learning, such as the one used by ClueBotNG for more than a decade, have been more than successful in helping users throughout the encyclopedia. Generative AI, however, has been more problematic, especially since the introduction of ChatGPT in late 2022. We have clear policies relating to image generation, and to use of language models in discussions, but similar policies regarding content generation are still lacking. Reports involving LLM issues are a daily occurrence, as, while they very often break existing guidelines, many users don't realize that, and I believe drawing a bright line regarding their use would be helpful in that regards.
The question of how to enforce such a policy is trickier. On the one hand, we already have policies about undisclosed paid editing or sockpuppetry that don't come with detection mechanisms baked inside the policy. On the other hand, some stylistic AI tells are also used by human editors, and it would be unjust to block them based on these alone. While it focuses only on unreviewed outputs, the language of G15 strikes a nice balance in my opinion. Broader policies should be considered, but the questions of policy and enforcement, while distinct, can't be fully separated either.
Ultimately, while I have many ideas on what to do with AI (and could talk for days about it!), it is important that our policies come from a consensus on what we want Wikipedia to be in the age of AI, and I am more than open to revising my ideas and proposals based on community feedback.
6. I really like your user page so I wanted to ask what inspired the design of your user page?
A: The background is inspired by art déco motifs with the colors of the non-binary flag, to which I added a few more extras, such as the spinning water wheels on each side. As it doesn't work perfectly on all browsers, and might be difficult to parse for screen readers, I also have a wikicode-only alternative in case it doesn't load correctly!
Optional question from Ritchie333
7. You spent quite a bit of time editing Northern green anaconda, which is now a redirect. Was all that content work a bit of a pyrrhic victory or can you give me further information?
A: By way of background, the northern green anaconda article was created soon after the species was described, and I quickly expanded it from a near-stub to what eventually became my first Good Article. A few months afterwards, new studies were published that refuted the species description, both on nomenclatural and genetic grounds. After working on the article to provide a good description of the species' status (which became quite heated at one point, but which I still took in my stride!), a discussion led to it being scheduled for a merge with the main green anaconda article, and procedurally demoted from its GA status.
This first foray into GA-level writing taught me quite a few things! Investing yourself in an article about emerging science, and especially nominating it for GA, is always a risky task, as you can't really predict in which direction follow-up research will go. Incidentally, this is why I didn't nominate Ichthyotitan for good article status. More generally, this experience taught me a lot about the GA process, and about article writing and researching in general. It was my first GA and the longest article I wrote. Finally, some of the material was moved into the main green anaconda article, so the effort still went somewhere!
More generally, while it was certainly a definitely a difficult learning experience, it was still a learning experience above all, and I hope that my work might one day help push the green anaconda article to become a GA itself!
Optional question from HwyNerd Mike
8. I've seen that you've done major content work, and I believe that you have definitely seen bias issues. How would you like to describe the bias issues that are currently in Wikipedia? Is there any way, you feel, to address such issues?
A: Wikipedia tries to follow a consensus of reliable sources. Focusing on verifiability, not just truth, means that we are sensitive to the biases of the sources we rely on, and, to a lesser extent, to the biases of editors assessing these sources. The worst method – with the exception of all others – has nonetheless worked surprisingly well, given the challenge of presenting varied perspectives in a single cohesive article. Attributing these perspectives is essential for this purpose, as it allows us to discuss a controversial topic without having to take sides. Conversely, when there is a clear consensus of sources, we can and should report what they say as statements of fact, as attributing it to specific sources can give the impression that it is still contested.
Importantly, NPOV isn't the same measure of neutrality by which external commentators are judging us. We can't necessarily expect that balancing out reliable sources will put us in the middle of a given country's political spectrum. This is especially true as we discuss issues that encompass areas of scholarly expertise, such as articles about evolutionary biology, which should not give equal weight to creationism for a sense of political neutrality.
I would say that Wikipedia still does have its blind spots. Systemic bias is absolutely present, from availability of sources to language barriers. Additionally, NPOV is not perfectly enforced everywhere: deliberate POV pushing very much exists, and, beyond that, it is a difficult task to assess sources while setting aside one's own biases. We're still a work in progress, but with projects like Women in Red or the Developing Countries WikiContest, I do hope that we can achieve a broader perspective.
Optional questions from Gramix13
9. Suppose you encounter an article/contribution/edit with tells of generative AI usage. When you ask the editor who made the content in question about this, they claim that they did not use AI to create it. Under what evidence provided by the editor would you deem it enough to rule out the usage of generative AI?
A: This question is very interesting as it contains a deeper question. Namely, to what extent it is relevant to ascertain that an edit was, or was not, generated by AI. My issue with the use of generative AI on Wikipedia is a systemic one – it allows editors to generate, at a large scale, content that goes against our policies and guidelines in sometimes subtle but dangerous ways.
As such, determining if an edit was AI-generated is part of the more basic goal of identifying if the edit was policy-compliant If looking at a single edit that I suspect to be AI, without a broader pattern of AI-related issues by this user, then the question of whether it is truly AI or not becomes much less important. It is absolutely possible for an editor to use AI assistance in making a constructive contribution, such as to help with formatting (as a more advanced regex), or as a starting point in searching for sources (while being careful about systemic bias!) that are then human-reviewed. In that case, the ultimate origin of the content doesn't really matter.
Conversely, many of our AI "tells" are patterns that also happen to break our existing, non-AI-related policies and guidelines. For instance, if the edit contained many weasel or peacock words, I would likely ask the editor to reword it in a more encyclopedic way, instead of worrying about who ultimately wrote it. With more severe issues such as made-up sources, I would revert the content and warn them about the situation. This is one of the cases where transparency about the use of AI can be helpful for the editor – many users unfamiliar with AI may not realize that it can hallucinate entire sources, and this situation can be presented as a learning experience for them.
10. As we, as a community, continue to define policies and guidelines surrounding the usage of generative AI, how we can minimize the risks of catching false positive cases of generative AI?
A:

Discussion

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their 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. Toadspike [Talk] 17:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  2. As enthusiastic co-nom :) KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  3. Very happy to have grown together with you in the Discord. charlotte 👸♥ 17:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  4. Absolutely. Tenshi! (Talk page) 17:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  5. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 17:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  6. 100%, trusted nominators, good answers, and I know CE will do well with the tools. CoconutOctopus talk 17:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  7. Yes! jlwoodwa (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  8. Support: Well-tempered and clueful around the project with trusted nominators, surprised they weren't an admin already, a great fit for the role. Left guide (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  9. duh. EF5 17:38, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  10. Support, as nominator. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  11. Lol both the noms got beat to supporting Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 17:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
    Toadspike, the fastest support in the west. fanfanboy (blocktalk) 18:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  12. Their conduct and contributions in all areas where I've encountered them has been exemplary, and their above responses reinforce this impression. I have complete confidence they will make an excellent admin. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  13. Support, with questions about why this took so long! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  14. Support Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  15. Support No objections from me. Interactions with this user have been positive; I previously helped them with getting a photo for Apex (dinosaur). DraconicDark (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  16. Ternera (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  17. Support I saw this user just the other day asking for admin intervention, and my thought was "Can't you do that?" then I realized they're not an admin. ~ Matthewrb Get in touch · Breadcrumbs 17:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  18. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:56, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  19. Cryptic 17:56, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  20. Looooong overdue. Let's go enbies!! dbeef [talk] 17:57, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  21. Support – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  22. seems like a net positive :) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  23. Thank you for the work at AIC. Touchdown! NicheSports (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  24. Solid choice. Owen× ☎ 18:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  25. Finally. Chaotic Enby has my strongest possible Support, and has had it for quite some time. They are compassionate, patient, and clueful, and they have both the drive and the ability to push the whole movement forward. My only reservation, such as it is, is that CE becoming an admin would mean I'll be losing one of my favourite non-admin unblocks helpers. But I look forward to the changes CE will make - at a systematic, technical, and personal level - to make the encyclopedia a kinder, more thoughtful, and more inclusive space. -- asilvering (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  26. Yessssss. Despite having in the past checked and been surprised they weren't a mop-wielder already, I was still confused when I saw they had an RfA. My few interactions with them have always been pleasant, and there's plenty more that I've seen from them that shows they are well deserving of the bit. Perryprog (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  27. All my interactions with Chaotic Enby have been positive enough that I'm convinced they should get the mop. I can't be 100% certain they will fit the role, but I am confident they're the type of person we need as future admins. Soni (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  28. Support Two RfAs of high-quility candidates running at once? We are certainly being spoiled this week, aren't we? fanfanboy (blocktalk) 18:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  29. Eaaaasy support Nil🥝 18:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  30. Support. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  31. Support IAmChaos 18:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  32. Support I'm more suprised to learn that they aren't already an admin, and I trust the nominators as well. Time to fix that. LightlySeared (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  33. Support with confusion that they weren't one already Tazerdadog (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  34. Support – absolutely thrilled to see this. I offered to nom them myself awhile back. Their hard work in helping my idea of the Wikipedia:Unblock wizard come to life is something I'll be eternally grateful for and shows their dedication to admin work. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  35. Support High-quality candidate. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  36. Support Why not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  37. Support. Passes my requirements. CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 18:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  38. Support Obviously. Polygnotus (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  39. (t · c) buidhe 18:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  40. I've seen this user's kindness and love for the community firsthand, in dealing with blocked (and unblock-seeking) users and as an experienced mentor in the Discord. From AI cleanup to the Unblock Wizard, they consistently take the lead in fixing that which they find lacking in the project. Thus, I enthusiastically support this nomination. Staraction (talk | contribs) 18:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  41. Support Yay! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  42. Support - of course. GoldRomean (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  43. Support. ULPS (talk • contribs) 18:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  44. Support REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 19:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  45. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  46. – robertsky (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  47. Support - would be a great addition to the mop corps. ~deltasock (talk • cont) 19:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
    noting that while this account is not extended confirmed, it is an alt of a user that is, so the vote remains valid. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  48. Support: I'm aware of at least 10 admins who wanted to nominate Chaotic Enby. I cannot say enough positive things about them as an individual, and I'm excited for their potential, which I don't believe has come close to being reached yet. Since knowing them over the last year and a half, I've been beyond impressed as their thirst for knowledge, their kindness, and their ability to take criticism and grow from it. While you may find the occasional mistake they've made, they're always eager to correct those and to make sure they don't make that mistake again. I don't look for people who never make mistakes, I look for people who absorb knowledge, make the occasional make mistake, and make great efforts to not make those mistakes again. They'll be an absolute asset as an administrator. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  49. Everyone above has said great things. I'll just add my own emphasis to something that L235 brought up, which is that people who are blocked are generally not the top of anyone's mind. It speaks volumes that it is that group whom CE has dedicated their energy to helping. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  50. Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  51. YES FINALLY!!!!!! Sophisticatedevening(talk) 19:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  52. Unequivocally, enthusiastically, entirely support qcne (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  53. A mop for cleaning up AI slop? I can certainly support that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  54. Chaotic Enby will be one of our best admins. I'm surprised this didn't happen a long time ago. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  55. Support they've contributed a lot of good to the project and though Q7 hasn't been answered as of writing I recall that being a moment that presented a great opportunity to learn and reference for future endeavours in the biology-space. -- Reconrabbit 19:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  56. Support, it's about time! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  57. Support add me to the list of people who thought Chaotic Enby had already been elected admin at some point. signed, Rosguill talk 19:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  58. Support, finally! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  59. Support — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 20:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  60. Support, and adding my name to those confused to find that they weren't already an admin. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  61. Enthusiastically Support - also thought they already were an admin, and have been consistently impressed by their civility and clarity of thought when we have crossed paths. -- LWG talk 20:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  62. Support, weren't they already an admin?? Mandela effect?? monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  63. Support glad to see CE deciding to run. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  64. Support wholeheartedly; I was waiting for this one. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 20:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  65. Support, I've had only positive interactions with them and they will make an excellent admin. Especially in a time where AI threats to Wikipedia are on the rise, their expertise and well reasoned decision making in that area is invaluable. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  66. Weak Support, a very helpful person in various ways, especially in unblock requests. However, lacks the level of conviction and power that should be present in an admin. HSLover/DWF (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  67. Support. No problems here! Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  68. Zzz plant (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  69. Support They did not add a huge amount of content, but they have at least made a gesture at plant editing by fixing errors on Glycyrrhiza pallidiflora and Aureophycus, which is a kelp and not technically a plant, but I won't quibble. Though maybe they should be tested by the Green Knight. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  70. Support; good level of edits to AIV, CSD log looks solid. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 20:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  71. !!!!! ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 20:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  72. Absolutely. WindTempos they (talk • contribs) 20:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  73. Support. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 21:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  74. Support Why not? The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  75. Support due to a positive impression from noticing their work around the site. Skynxnex (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  76. —Ingenuity (t • c) 21:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  77. Support, can't believe I didn't see two RfAs. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 22:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  78. Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  79. Support Appears to be an excellent candidate.-- Ponyobons mots 22:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  80. Support — happy to have the opportunity to support someone who I'm sure will make an excellent mop-wielder. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 22:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  81. Support.—Alalch E. 22:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  82. Support. Only seen good stuff. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  83. Support A positive influence on the community and an overall great person to interact with. Honestly assumed they were an admin already. Best of luck for the nomination! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  84. Support Quiddity (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  85. Support no questions asked. JuniperChill (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  86. Support as I find zero problems with this editor; astounded by their work in the tech area. Also, why is there such a spike in RFAs? HwyNerd Mike (tokk) 23:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  87. Support, with the usual apologies in advance for whatever drama doing admin tasks might bring down upon the janitorial staff. Cheers! BD2412 T 23:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  88. Support Fathoms Below (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  89. Support Finally! I'm so glad to see they've decided the time is right. Besides creating WP:AIC they've continued to contribute to AI policy discussions with a deep understanding of the issues. They've got technical chops, have helped me out with assessing French-language sources and translations, and all my interactions with them have been friendly and constructive. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 00:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  90. Support Highly qualified candidate. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  91. Ca talk to me! 01:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  92. I've interacted with the candidate off-wiki and have only positive impressions of them. I don't think there are any pertinent issues that should prevent Chaotic Enby from getting the bit, to be honest. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  93. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  94. Support, I have never left a !vote in an RfA, but I was shocked when I found out this user was not an administrator. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  95. Support The times I have seen them around wiki they have always been polite and made good contributions and the wiki discussions I have read during the course of this RFA follow that experience. They also have answered all the questions(including mine) very well and so given all that and their experience in GA and AI cleanup I have no doubts they will be an excellent Admin. GothicGolem29 (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  96. Support. I've had pleasant (non-chaotic) interactions with the candidate, and trust L235's vetting process (having undergone it myself). The nomination and question answers look good — the interface work on the unblock wizard is admirable! Sdkb talk 01:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  97. Support I've seen this editor around a fair amount, and always noticed they have clue. Support based on that and the nominators and answers to questions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  98. Support Chaotic Enby with a drive! Deep left field! No doubt about it! Long overdue and well deserved. Kline • talk • contribs 02:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  99. Support: Our paths have rarely crossed, but you impressed me with your novel solution here. You have a lot of wisdom and creativity—if you bring even just half of that as an admin, you'll do great. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  100. Support - Thank you for volunteering your time w Wikipedia! jengod (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  101. Support. How are you not already an admin? Gommeh 📖   🎮 03:04, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  102. Support MCE89 (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  103. Support Talked with you before, great editor and will be a great admin. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 03:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  104. Support, as they were occasionally active with edit filters. No concerns here. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 03:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  105. Support Thoughtful, careful, helpful, clueful, knowledgeable, kind, should've run a long time ago. Thanks for volunteering! Perfect4th (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  106. Support – DreamRimmer ■ 03:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  107. Support I usually don't vote on RfAs but I saw the name and thought "oh yeah, them, definitely". Apocheir (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  108. Support Rainsage (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  109. Support Why not? Seanwk :) (Talk | Contribs) 04:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  110. Support – to riff on their username, clearly chaotic good at the very least. :-) Also, thanks very much for starting the RFC that gave me history-merging abilities. Graham87 (talk) 04:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  111. Support ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  112. Support easy support (was waiting for the day you RfA'd)! love the technical work, esp. on that unblock wizard and I hope that gets incorporated soon! ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 06:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  113. Support: Clear net positive, though I'm just wondering if the strength of some of my AN and ANI comments from last year eventually led to the idea of creating the Unblock wizard? Either way, I've not seen that innovative creation before and am looking forward to trying that out. 🌻 A♭m (Ring!) (Notes) 06:48, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  114. Support Thanks for volunteering. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  115. —Kusma (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  116. Support Chaotic Enby is someone who I assumed was already an admin, and can only see them doing great things with the tools. Phuzion (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  117. Suppport Very happy to support! -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  118. Suppport - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  119. Suppport – Ammarpad (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  120. Valorrr (lets chat) 12:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  121. Support, without hesitation. MediaKyle (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  122. Support duh??? Quite possibly one of the enbies of all time, great editor. mwwv converse∫edits 13:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  123. Support - put me in that category of "kinda thought they were one already" Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  124. Support – Yup! Another one to the "Wait what they aren't yet?" bucket. YuniToumei (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  125. Support to be honest, I also thought they were already an admin. Very qualified and a good candidate. Lovelyfurball (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  126. Support. I've seen CE at various places around the project and they've been consistently thoughtful and insightful. Their content and technical contributions are new discoveries for me but are also impressive. Overall, a great candidate for the mop. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  127. Support great experiences with this user, looking forward to them gaining the mop. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 13:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  128. Support. Valuable in admin corps. Fade258 (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  129. Support: Seems qualified to be an administrator to me. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 13:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  130. Support. Glad I caught this RFA in time. I know they're very experienced with technical stuff, so that's good for me. Icepinner 13:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  131. Support: Rossouw (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  132. Support No concerns Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  133. Couldn’t think of someone more fit for this 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  134. Support Anyone who thinks unblocking is (often) a good thing gets my !vote. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC).
  135. Support of course. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  136. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  137. Support seems unlikely that they'd misuse the tools. (Also they're a great editor and Wikipedian.) Guettarda (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  138. Support -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  139. Support -- seen around before, is chill, WikiProject AI Cleanup and having written an entire unblock wizard is definitely a great resume. More unblock helpers is always good. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  140. Support as per user:fanfanboy. Schwede66 18:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  141. Salvio giuliano 19:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  142. Support Yup! KylieTastic (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  143. Support Poor Rjjiii has been outpaced in support in a single day. Goes to show how much we value your judgment! ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 19:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    Hi ViridianPenguin! I know this comment is intended to be a compliment, and I respect it a lot, but I don't want it to be at the expense of Rjjiii. Having an ongoing RfA can be stressful for candidates regardless of the state of the discussion, and I don't think that comparing two different situations is helpful, even though I know you meant well. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    Stuck out down to what I meant to say. Thanks for the empathetic perspective! ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 23:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  144. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  145. Support. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 20:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  146. Support. No issues here. Let'srun (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  147. Support. Accomplished and trustworthy. Sophocrat (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  148. Kind soul. Neo Purgatorio (pester!) 20:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  149. Maximum poggies moment. jp×g🗯️ 21:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  150. Support, of course! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 21:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  151. Plenty of fantastic reasons have already been given to support. Also, your userpage is awesome. Acalamari 23:27, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  152. Support Pencilceaser123 (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  153. Support I thought you were already an admin! CE (allowable abbreviation?) will do great. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 00:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral


General comments

Anyone know why it says there is a neutral vote on the RfA/RfB thing for user pages when there are no neutral votes here? CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 13:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

The neutral vote I see on that page is for the other RFA not this one. GothicGolem29 (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
The neutral vote is on User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report, but not on the RfA page. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 20:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Sounds like a bug with the way Cyberpower maintains that page automatically; {{RfX report}} is based on a Lua module, whereas Cyberpower's page is based on a bot tally. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
It appears to have gotten off track here. Not sure why though. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 20:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Ohhh ok thanks apologies I thought they meant the RFA page. GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Chaotic_Enby&oldid=1319306963"