Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk.

Note: Although this page is under extended confirmed protection, non-extended confirmed editors may still comment on individual requests, which are located on subpages of this page.

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Chaotic Enby	248	1	0	>99	Open	17:26, 3 November 2025	8 hours	no	report

The current time is 09:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC). —

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Chaotic Enby	248	1	0	>99	Open	17:26, 3 November 2025	8 hours	no	report

The current time is 09:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC). —

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.

This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.

Administrator elections, an alternative route to gain adminship, take place on a 5-month schedule. The latest administrator election took place in July 2025, with the next election in December 2025.

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce community consensus and Arbitration Committee decisions by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.

About RfA

Recent RfA, RfBs, and admin elections ()

Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	Tally
				S	O	N/⁠A	%
Rjjiii	RfA	Successful	1 Nov 2025	170	0	1	100
Toadspike	RfA	Successful	9 Oct 2025	245	0	1	100
KylieTastic	AE	Elected	31 Jul 2025	374	66	101	85
Kj cheetham	AE	Elected	31 Jul 2025	350	64	127	85
Ser!	AE	Elected	31 Jul 2025	314	91	136	78
Curbon7	AE	Elected	31 Jul 2025	293	87	161	77
Jlwoodwa	AE	Elected	31 Jul 2025	314	95	132	77
Smasongarrison	AE	Elected	31 Jul 2025	312	98	131	76
UndercoverClassicist	AE	Elected	31 Jul 2025	307	97	137	76
CoconutOctopus	AE	Elected	31 Jul 2025	315	110	116	74
Hinnk	AE	Elected	31 Jul 2025	260	100	181	72

The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.

Nomination standards

The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience). However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience, and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.

If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.

Nominations

To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate, or added after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.

Please do not transclude the RfA page until after the nomination has been accepted by the candidate, and the page, and its questions, has been filled out to the candidate's satisfaction. Be aware that the process will start the moment the RfA is transcluded to this page.

Notice of RfA

Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}} on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en.

Expressing opinions

All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with the extended confirmed right. Other comments are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not administrators or extended confirmed may be moved to this section if mistakenly placed elsewhere.

If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".

There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.

To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.

The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

For more information, see WP:Bureaucrats § Promotions and RfX closures.

Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.

In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process. In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.

In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way". A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.

If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.

Monitors

In the 2024 RfA review, the community authorized designated administrators and bureaucrats to act as monitors to moderate discussion at RfA. The monitors can either self-select when an RfA starts, or can be chosen ahead of time by the candidate privately. Monitors may not be involved with the candidate, may not nominate the candidate, may not !vote in the RfA, and may not close the RfA, although if the monitor is a bureaucrat they may participate in the RfA's bureaucrat discussion if there is one. In addition to normal moderation tools, monitors may remove !votes from the tally or from the discussion entirely at their discretion when the !vote contains significant policy violations that must be struck or otherwise redacted and provides no rational basis for its position – or when the comment itself is a blockable offense. The text of the !vote can still be struck and/or redacted as normal. Monitors are encouraged to review the RfA regularly. Admins and bureaucrats who are not monitors may still enforce user conduct policies and guidelines at RfA as normal.

Current nominations for adminship

The current time is 09:05:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

---

if nominations have not updated.

---

Chaotic Enby

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (248/1/0); 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: For now, the community has tried to carefully word policies such as G15 to limit themselves to the most blatant cases. As I discussed in my previous question, in more ambiguous cases, ascertaining whether an individual edit is AI-generated should be a lower priority than making sure that it is accurate and constructive. Even clear-cut signs like UTM parameters (added by ChatGPT to indicate the provenance of its URLs) can come from it being used as a legitimate, if imperfect, first step to search for sources, rather than full-on text generation. Educating community members on what we consider acceptable or unacceptable uses of AI, and the different purposes of the various tools we have to catch them, is essential to minimize risks of false positives.

AI "tells" are also evolving pretty quickly, and we have to evolve alongside them. Some like word choices can easily reflect the language of workers outsourced to provide them feedback, often from the Global South. Because of that, we should be especially careful about not relying exclusively on these clues, as they may unwittingly widen systemic bias.

Optional question from Robert McClenon

11. What experience do you have in dealing with paid editing and especially undisclosed paid editing in Wikipedia?

A: I have encountered paid editors while working in NPP and AfC, and helped some navigate block appeals (most often {{uw-spamublock}} cases). Beyond that, I haven't worked in UPE and am not familiar with the more specific practices, so I don't have a lot to say about it. I will watch and learn from more experienced folks if I ever want to work in this area one day.

Optional question from WereSpielChequers

12. You last updated User:Chaotic Enby/Plain and simple guide to Wikipedia a year ago. Does that guide reflect your current understanding of Wikipedia?

A: I wrote this guide as a quick reference "dos and don'ts" for new users. As such, it obviously simplifies a lot, and doesn't go into the deeper nuances of some policies. To take a single example, I say Non-independent sources (such as company websites or press releases) are highly discouraged., without going in the details of what WP:ABOUTSELF allows – while more accurate, it would be too much for new users in a single sitting.

I still broadly agree with the points I wrote there, although skimming the guide again, I would clarify some aspects better. For example, I talk about what sources you can or can't cite, but forget to mention verifiability itself as a logical prerequisite. While it is in my userspace, the guide is open for other editors to contribute to (and some have done so!), and I am very happy to hear any feedback on how to make it more accurate while still being accessible for newcomers.

Discussion

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

---

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)

   Now that the adrenaline has worn off, I'm back to add that Chaotic Enby has highly valuable technical skills, great dedication to the project, and unmatched compassion for their fellow editors. They are an excellent candidate. Toadspike [Talk] 20:32, 30 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 (block_talk) 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 (block_talk) 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)
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)

    Well, this is a bit funny and silly: I totally forgot that I voted in this thing, and was about to ask the nominee if they ever considered running for RfA. Then, I remembered I voted in this thing ... deja vu, I guess. Steel1943 (talk) 21:37, 29 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?? monkey_smashing^keyboards (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! • 8^va? 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.-- Ponyo^{bons 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. (Edited 22:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)) I forgot to mention that I also appreciate their ability to keep calm and maintain perspective, even during stressful situations. – 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" Jauerback^dude?/_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)

     @ViridianPenguin: It's all good; this didn't bother me. Congrats on all the supports, Chaotic Enby, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:04, 2 November 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)
154. Support Everything on their resume is really good (starting up a WikiProject dedicated to cleaning up AI is super-impressive on its own to me, and so is writing an Unblock Wizard), and I have had nothing but good interactions with Chaotic Enby myself! I trust they will make a good admin!! Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
155. Support KuyaMoHirowo • he/him (DM me on Discord at kuyamohirowo (DMs are open!)) :3 01:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
156. Support with particular effusive praise for the brilliant WP:AGF-compliant, WP:ROPE-extending anti-AI tactic of starting off with a relatively benign warning about MOS:PEACOCK. And I also just learned about the candidate's awesome work developing that unblock script! What a well-qualified person! Yay, Chaotic Enby! Julietdeltalima (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
157. Order A New Mop For Delivery ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 01:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
158. should watchlist rfa HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 01:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
159. Support AntiCompositeNumber (they/them) (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
160. Support Have seen them around and have no problems with them, so I don't feel the need to ask any optional questions. I knew they weren't an admin, so my reaction to this RfA is "'Bout time!" Daniel Case (talk) 02:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
161. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 03:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
162. Support about time ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
163. Support I've seen Chaotic Enby active in multiple RFCs making constructive contributions, esspecially in the area of AI. I has a hesitancy about handing the tools to them, despite believing them to be well qualified for the tools, as I was concerned about the potential for the use of tools to be overly broad in combating generative AI and catching users who may have AI tells in their writing but don't actually use AI. I'm very impressed with their thought out response to my questions on the matter, recognizing that this is not a black and white issue of detecting AI usage, in particular their last sentence we should be especially careful about not relying exclusively on these clues, as they may unwittingly widen systemic bias. I think this is important for all of us to remember as we attempt to find agreement on how to handle generative AI on Wikipedia, because we need to be ready for those situations where it might not be clear whether AI was used and when the stakes and consequences are high. Chaotic Enby has my full confidence and trust to be an administrator. Gramix13 (talk) 05:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
164. Support: Familiar and trusted, no concerns. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 05:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
165. Support Nominated by two of Wikipedia's most trusted editors says a lot. Mkdw ^talk 07:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
166. Support jolielover♥talk 08:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
167. Support without reservation. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
168. Support - like so many others, I was shocked when I found out Chaotic Enby wasn't already an admin. In all of my interactions with them I've found them to be a passionate, highly skilled, and thoughtful editor. Very happy to add my support to the pile :) Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
169. I'm not particularly familiar with this candidate so I checked a random sample of their contributions. I found nothing of concern.—S Marshall T/C 08:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
170. Support I avoid participating in the RfA process because I JDLI, and I don't remember ever commenting on any in my 10 years here. I cannot avoid this one; CE is just too good for me to not be a part of this. 3df (talk) 08:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
171. sapphaline (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
172. Support more than qualified. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
173. Support Thank you for your work! Tvpuppy (talk) 10:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
174. Oppose: as a True Neutral I do not take kindly to chaos (not even Chaotic Good) on a project where we desire order in our working and presentation. JavaHurricane 10:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

     In spite of your alignment – or perhaps because of it – it seems you've been rolling mighty well on deception checks when it comes to your RfA !votes :) YuniToumei (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

175. Support - A trustworthy candidate. Thanks for volunteering. Netherzone (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
176. Support, no reason to think they'd abuse the tools. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
177. Support. Rzuwig^► 11:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
178. Support only good experiences with this user —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 12:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
179. Support ScrabbleTiles (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
180. Support: Their contribution to various fields literally screams Administrators without tools tools to me. They are the example of how much admin-like and admin-arena contributions one can do without being one, let's give them the ability to do even more with being one! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
181. Support Good candidate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
182. Support Of course! Mox Eden (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
183. Support Saw someone mention finding out about the unblock wizard from an active RfA and lo and behold
     As I mentioned when Bunnyp gave them the WP:AWOT: Yeah!!!! Moves fast, does not break things. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
184. Support, IRL commitments kept me from support this immediately, but better late than never! TLDR, don't have a single bad thing to say here. For what it's worth I've worked with CE on a fair bit of technical topics including with WMF folks about (then) upcoming product deployments and I'm convinced CE is underselling their technical expertise here. Their non-public contributions to the conversation on WMF's deployment of a trial of hCAPTCHA on English Wikipedia, Image Browsing and thoughts on Temporary Accounts helped shape WMF communication on the topics, helping them avoid/anticipate pitfalls and have helped volunteers like me pushback against (and/or champion for) product descisions and choices taken by the WMF (some of which might have legitimately avert confrontation between the WMF and the community). -- Sohom (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
185. Support will be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
186. Support wonderful editor. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
187. Support we always need more good admins. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
188. Support 100% Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
189. Support Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
190. Support Love seeing people with the tech skills gain adminship. Joyous! Noise! 17:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
191. Daniel (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
192. Support EM (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
193. Soup Conyo14 (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
194. Support. Good noms, good body of work. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
195. Support. Thanks for volunteering. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
196. Support with hope that Wikipedia will have more resources to deal with LLM or AI generated material: I think encyclopaedias is a type of knowledge resource where human contributors and reviewers are essential. --Minoa (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
197. Support - Bearian (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
198. Support Solid choice for getting the admin tools. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
199. Support Wrote the great User:Chaotic Enby/Plain and simple guide to Wikipedia. Helped develop AI policy. Bremps... 22:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
200. Support Bringingthewood (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
201. Support. They have contributed many good-faith edits and really skilled indeed. Galaxybeing (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
202. Support. Definitely a case of "wait, they're not an admin already?". Will certainly be a positive to the project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
203. Support Looks fine, the current standing oppose doesn't seem to make them unfit to be an admin. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
204. Support: surprised this hasn't happened already. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
205. Support I think that they're a very good, qualified candidate. Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 01:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
206. Support for the excellent work already put into AI/LLM cleanup on the project, and no doubt for what is likely to follow in the coming months. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 01:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
207. Support as one of the folks that didn't realize they weren't an admin already. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
208. Support a very obviously qualified candidate Ultraodan (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
209. obviously!! really, i'm ashamed to not be among the first to support. the opposition is woefully unconvincing. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 11:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
210. Support for many reasons, but most recently: very level-headed and elegant analysis of actual data regarding the LLM issue(s) at certain RfCs, etc. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 13:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
211. Support. Having seen Chaotic Enby's excellent work in WikiProject AI Cleanup, I have no doubt that they will use the permissions to help safeguard our content and community from the disruptive effects of LLM misuse, an ongoing project-wide issue that urgently needs additional administrator attention. — Newslinger talk 13:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
212. Support The editor is keen and capable of achieving. Worked with them up at AI noticeboard.I would have !voted earlier but missed it. scope_creep^Talk 15:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
213. Easy Support, lots of good work. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
214. Support Obvious yes, used to think they were an admin. Both qualified and considerate. CNC (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
215. Support FaviFake (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
216. Support Andrew Gray (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
217. Stephen 21:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
218. Support Never had any direct interaction with them, but I've seen their name time and time again around the project doing good work. Like many others, shocked to learn they didn't already have the mop! 57birdnerd (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
219. Support I can't remember the last time I was so surprised that somebody didn't already have the mop. -- Kicking222 (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
220. Support - the candidate is overqualified at this point, with lots of content creation, experience in more technical areas, doing lots of AI writing cleanup, contributing to the AI policy, and handling unblocks even before getting the mop. Brat Forelli🦊 13:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
221. Support I run into them fairly frequently and I think they would make a great admin. Loki (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
222. Support Well overdue! GGOTCC 18:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
223. Support - ScalarFactor (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
224. Support. Great candidate. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 19:14, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
225. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 19:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
226. Oppose, too good for adminship, should try to get crat immediately User:Easternsahara_{please review this and this} 21:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
227. Support without question. Excellent work across the project. Star Mississippi 00:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
228. Support - No reason to question or oppose. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
229. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
230. Support - Looks like someone who will use the mop competently. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
231. Support - Easily Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 13:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
232. Support - I don't see any reason no to trust Enby with the bit Squawk7700 (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
233. Support per the two three-year-old edits cited by @Hemiauchenia. Everyone makes mistakes. That's part of how we learn to become better. I agree that people should be judged on what they did three years ago – and on how they've improved since. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
234. Support. And I just want to say that Skeleton panda sea squirt makes me very happy! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
235. Support - seems fine //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 23:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
236. Support They have helped me more then a few times. This is long overdue. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
237. Support - No concerns. ChaoticVermillion (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
238. Support - Yup. Thanks for volunteering. Loopy30 (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
239. Support - For reasons already stated by many others. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
240. Support Thoughtful, well-rounded user who will benefit the project with the tools. Spencer^T•C 06:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
241. Support. An impressive candidate! Maproom (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
242. Support TheBritinator (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
243. Nice to see quite a few rfas recently Plutus 💬 mess — Fortune favors the curious 09:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
244. Support could this site benefit from a chaotic addition to the admin corps? Well yes, if there is an Enby in cite. ϢereSpielChequers 10:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
245. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
246. Support - No good reason not to. Garion96 (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
247. Support absolutely, very impressed with their allaround work on the Unblock Wizard and WikiProject AI Cleanup + content creation. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 21:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
248. Support! Seems like an excellent candidate from my interactions with them, and I'm sure they'll be an excellent admin! Best of luck. — MrConorAE ^{(User | Talk | Contrib)} 08:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. In my interactions with them, and from what I have seen of their comments in administrator's noticeboard discussions, they have fallen below the high standards I would expect from an administrator. I believe their content writing skills are mediocre, and they lack the deftness and tact to be an administrator handling important disputes, even if they have made important contributions to Wikipedia's technical side. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

   Discussion moved to talk page and hatted. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

General comments

• @HwyNerd Mike and Robert McClenon: Could you both please explain how your questions relate to Chaotic Enby? Thanks, theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Theleekycauldron Ah, thank you for your question. I see that the candidate has done significant content work, therefore I added that question because in content work, there has been quite a lot of bias claims and issues. This has been quite true, especially in recent times, and I feel like bias issues form a lot of the basis of what determines an article good. I will further clarify the question, thanks. HwyNerd Mike (tokk) 00:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for clarifying! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  User:Theleekycauldron - I would like to know what thoughts Chaotic Enby has for using the admin tools against paid editing. The work that needs to be done by administrators includes checking artificial intelligence and paid editing. Chaotic Enby has discussed artificial intelligence. Should I add a comment/question to that effect? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon: That administrators can do work related to the thing Chaotic Enby has a background in onwiki (AI) and the separate thing you want to talk about (PE reform) does not mean that PE reform relates to Chaotic Enby's request for permissions (anymore than it relates to Rjjiii's request, on which you asked the exact same question, I'll note). I'm moving your question to the talk page as a monitor action; feel free to ask a new question that is relevant to Chaotic Enby's background or fitness. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

---

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)

There was a hidden # in the wikicode. I tried deleting that just now. Let's see if that fixes it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I think we're coming up on almost a decade of this being a bug, lol. See e.g. Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Cullen328#Glitch in the automated tally?. Mz7 (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

>"almost a decade"

>links to thread from 2017

We really need a rule against mentioning the ever-fleeting passage of time in RFAs... mwwv ^converse∫_edits 11:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Wild to me that 2017 is almost a decade ago how time flies... GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 15:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

---

 Note: I have moved the below discussion from the oppose section to the "General comments" section, where it seems to be better placed. Mz7 (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I thought this ended with Jeter and Ichiro ... continue. Bringingthewood (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bringingthewood: maybe i'm just not in on the joke because baseball is not my thing (please no one find my little league stats), but i'm not sure what you're driving at? possibly also because it seems like you're replying to someone, but i'm not sure who. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Lol. Mine also, TLC. Just bringing humor to the 'one oppose' deal. I added my support and now I'll bow out. ;) Bringingthewood (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Bringingthewood alludes to the shattering of unanimity. Derek Jeter and Ichiro Suzuki were both voted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame just one vote short of unanimous at 99.7%.[1][2] Left guide (talk) 01:16, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

If I had a nickel for every time a baseball-related comment was made in this RfA, I'd have two nickels. It isn't a lot but it is a bit funny it happened twice. Kline • talk • contribs 16:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Delighted to see one of my favorite copypastas from Dr. Doofenshmirtz (in Phineas and Ferb the Movie: Across the 2nd Dimension)! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Support I echo what 57birdnerd said above. I've never paid too much attention to RFAs but when I stumbled across this, I knew I had to vote. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

moved to general comments, user is not extended-confirmed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

---

RadioKAOS, are you making an accusation that CE has "upload[ed] a non-free file rather than putting the effort into locating a free equivalent or even putting the effort into seeing what's already available on Commons?" Because if yes, we need a diff, and if no, how is this relevant to their candidacy? Valereee (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

It's been six hours and RadioKAOS hasn't responded, so, moving question to talk. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

And here I thought the community was taking steps to reduce the toxicity of RFA. This clearly smacks of making something up out of thin air to attempt to control the narrative. The fact is, it's become far too easy to flood the encyclopedia with non-free files and the group of editors who have chosen to work in that area are feckless. Knowing what an adminship candidate feels on the matter is important to anticipate what to expect from them, especially in RFAs where the result is a foregone conclusion. So what excuse do you have now to attempt to censor me? Also, a whole six hours? It's Saturday, I have the day off work and I'm busy living my life. Why do you think it's okay to treat me as though I'm not showing up to my job? I don't know about any of you, but my job sure as shit isn't here. You mean WP:VOLUNTEER is one more thing that certain editors can throw around as it suits their purposes, but doesn't apply to everyone? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@RadioKAOS: The intent isn't to censor you or force you to edit; you're never required to edit, but RfAs are stressful and time-sensitive, so if a comment or question seems irrelevant or otherwise unproductive, it might get moved before you have a chance to defend it. Like I said to another editor, I don't think an RfA candidate can be reasonably expected to have nuanced thoughts on every area an admin could conceivably participate in, especially if they have no background or intent to work in that area. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@RadioKAOS rather than focusing on the actions done on you, may I bring your attention back to your initial statement? Can you pinpoint which NFCC file is this or the exact discussion? Their upload log is a blank. Upload log shows deleted files. with apologies, see below. – robertsky (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh wait... looking at Special:Diff/1319876126, this seems to be more of a general question rather than finger pointing. – robertsky (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

---

---

About RfB

"WP:RFB" redirects here. For bot requests, see Wikipedia:Bot requests. For help with referencing, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert

{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}

into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.

While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.

Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.

Current nominations for bureaucratship

There are no current nominations.

---

Related pages

• Wikipedia:Administrators
• Wikipedia:Administrator elections

For RfX participants

• Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship
• Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship
• Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates
• Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination
• Nominator's guide
• Wikipedia:Advice for RfA voters
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Debriefs – RfA candidates sharing their RfA experience

History and statistics

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship by year
• Wikipedia:RFA by month
• Wikipedia:Successful adminship candidacies
• Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological)
• Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies
• Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies/Chronological
• Wikipedia:List of resysopped users
• Wikipedia:RFA reform

Removal of adminship

• Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship – Requests to remove administrator access for abuse and/or self-de-adminship
• Wikipedia:Former administrators
• Wikipedia:Desysoppings by month

Noticeboards

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
• Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

Permissions

• Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
• Requests for other user permissions can be made at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.