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	84	0	0	100	Open	17:26, 3 November 2025	6 days, 18 hours	no	report
Rjjiii	127	0	1	100	Open	18:50, 1 November 2025	4 days, 19 hours	no	report

The current time is 23:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC). —

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Chaotic Enby	84	0	0	100	Open	17:26, 3 November 2025	6 days, 18 hours	no	report
Rjjiii	127	0	1	100	Open	18:50, 1 November 2025	4 days, 19 hours	no	report

The current time is 23:02, 27 October 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	%
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 23:02:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

---

if nominations have not updated.

---

Chaotic Enby

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (84/0/0); 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. How would you like to respond to claims of bias on Wikipedia, especially since recent news coverage has claimed that Wikipedia is a leftist?

A:

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)
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)
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)

---

Rjjiii

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (127/0/1); Scheduled to end 18:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Monitors:

Nomination

Rjjiii (talk · contribs) – I'm very pleased to introduce Rjjiii for consideration. A strong content creator, he first caught my eye in WP:The Core Contest of 2024, where he won first prize with a beautiful rewrite of Night. He now has 10 GAs and 2 FAs under his belt, including the collaboration at the Roswell incident.

The attention to detail shown in their content work is mirrored in his admin-adjacent work, particularly at AfD, where their elaborate explanations make it easy for closers to find consensus. His high match rate (99%) shows a willingness to delve deep into sourcing to assess notability (e.g. in his recent nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard (demon)). These are also skills that come in handy at DYK, where the high volume of new hooks each day means that mistakes are sometimes only noticed last minute, and can therefore only be fixed with the admin tools. He is consistently kind and friendly, as demonstrated in their reviews at FAC, GAN and their work in the Teahouse, which shows their commitment to supporting newcomers. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Co-nomination statement

Rjjiii– that’s one R, two Js, and three Is– has been a consistently excellent editor and one I’m proud to be co-nominating. RJ’s work particularly around identifying reliable sources and removing long standing poorly sourced text demonstrates a strong content sensibility useful for admin work. Like Femke, he first appeared on my radar for their rewrite of Night, an article I had always wanted to fix up but never got around to due to the overwhelming research required due to it being such a “general” topic. Under RJ, the article went from a few jumbled under sourced paragraphs and spare trivia to an extensively sourced article bordering on FA quality– a literal night and day difference! The time RJ provides into his work is truly impressive. This thorough mindset goes beyond article writing; Rj has considerable experience around AfD voting and template editor related work, including maintaining citation templates and vetting and promoting DYK hooks. His contributions talk page interactions and discussion contributions show a calm demeanor and responsiveness when questioned. I’m convinced Rjjiii will be as excellent of an admin as they are an editor and hope the community joins in supporting. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:43, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, and I've not edited for pay. I have one other account, User:Rjjiii (ii), mainly for mobile testing.

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: It would be an extension of some of the work I already do. To pitch in at Did You Know (DYK), I have promoted over 200 hooks to DYK's prep areas, written over a dozen nominations, flagged unresolved issues on approved DYK nominations, and responded to errors on the Main Page. Hooks near the Main Page require admin permissions to fix. They also require experience with DYK processes, guidelines, and technical workings, which I already have.

I have also worked in many aspects of the deletion processes. I have !voted or commented in over a hundred deletion discussions, closed dozens of Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussions, was thanked for a merge close with a detailed closing statement, and have completely rewritten articles at AfD, like Instagram face. My AfD !votes match the outcome the vast majority of the time.

The admin tools would allow me to take on additional roles in those two broad areas. In deletion discussions, I could delete and undelete articles. At the moment, I close discussions at TfD and orphan template transclusions, but still have to rely on other admins to delete the templates. I would also be able to directly resolve Main Page issues reported at WP:ERRORS, and in the DYK areas that are fully protected before being transcluded to the Main Page.

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

A: Leroy Chollet is a featured biography where I am the primary author. When I first googled him, the Wikipedia article was only a stub. While researching, I expanded the article and took it through Good article, Did you know, and Featured article reviews. I have 10 GAs including some on broader topics, like night which I rewrote during the 2024 Core Contest for Vital Articles.

My work on the {{Historical populations}} template is probably relevant for advanced permissions; I implemented a consensus contrary to my own proposal. After fixing the template's appearance for current themes, editors reported issues on the older themes it was originally written for. A revert would not display the former style for most readers, so we discussed it on the talk page. I worked out a technical solution to restore the template's visual style. This preserved the intended style on the old desktop themes, but it also worked on mobile devices, the new desktop theme, the app, and dark mode.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I handle conflicts mainly by staying focused on the content and leaning on the policies and sources. For example, I worked mainly with a couple of experienced editors to get the Roswell incident article up to FA status. Working with two experienced editors with differing views where one person is challenging inclusion of content and one challenging exclusion of content has improved my own skills with writing and research beyond just Wikipedia. You can find a detailed chart in the archives where I did a lengthy analysis of which conspiracy theories were covered by which reliable sources in order to determine WP:DUEWEIGHT in the article.

The only time I was reported to the administrator's noticeboard for incidents (ANI) was regarding the Westall UFO article, when a newer editor was attempting to add material against policies and guidelines. On the article's talk page, I cited and quoted the relevant portions of WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:V. The other editor argued for a reversed interpretation of Wikipedia policies, but consensus at ANI supported my approach. In the future, I'll continue to lean on policies and sources to direct concerns towards the encyclopedic content rather than interpersonal conflicts.

---

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 Robertsky

4. Our paths seldom cross, I think primarily because the admin areas we are in don't usually overlap. Are there any other admin areas that you would like work in?

A: Those two areas are where I would start. Beyond that, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (AIV) interests me, but I'd first seek more experience as a regular editor. I've reported about a dozen vandalism-only accounts at AIV and have experience with Twinkle and generic rollback. However, that's not enough experience to fully evaluate when a block is needed, so I'd continue to make reports to better understand the process.

I could also help with fully protected edit requests at Wikipedia:Dashboard#Requested_edits when there is a backlog, although there is usually a greater backlog for the template-protected requests. I have implemented straightforward and complex edit requests on protected templates.

Optional question from 11wallisb

5. The Roswell incident is a fascinating subject, congratulations on bringing it up to FA, that is a great achievement! When writing articles, I've found that I enjoy it more when I have a fervent interest in the subject. Is this the case for the articles you have created and researched, and will you continue to work on and create articles once you become an administrator? Best of luck to you!

A: First, let me share some credit with my collaborators. (They are welcome to name themselves below if they wish, though I don't want to extend RfA scrutiny to editors who didn't sign up for it.) I would likely not have gotten involved if there had not been another editor already trying to expand and improve the article. Beyond formal credits, several editors dropped by to clean up, tag errors, give feedback on the talk page, and help rewrite whole sections in a subpage.

Second, absolutely! Any topic is much easier when there's interest, and, yes, I plan to continue writing after becoming an administrator. I hope to bring the Ottoman corsair/cartographer Piri Reis up to FA status in the future. Also, I forage as a hobby, and have been reading about the Eastern Agricultural Complex plants that were farmed in North America before the introduction of maize and beans. Some, like maygrass and lambsquarters, should be growing wild in Louisiana this coming spring, and hopefully I can tie that interest into their articles.

Optional question from HwyNerd Mike

6. Although this is my first time knowing you, I found that you have an amazing record of bringing articles to GAs, like Night  4. How would you describe the process of sourcing, MOS, etc. in bringing such general topics to a good article? More specifically, how do you filter reliable sources?

A: This depends on what's available. To find NPOV's "due weight", I start by looking for high-quality sources about the topic of the article: university press books, published books from experts, literature reviews in journals, or reference articles. Continuing with Night as an example, there's an excellent book for both sourcing and due weight on the "History" section: Roger Ekirch's At Day's Close. For the "Biology" sections, I ran into the issue where most books about night overall, or even just the biology of night, were written for a younger audience. This suggested writing at least the article's first paragraph as approachable to even a middle school reader, though those weren't citable sources. It's not visible from the actual article, but for that section I used several high-quality documentaries to determine due weight. I let them play while taking paper notes and used the common topics to search via Wikipedia Library for sources that were peer-reviewed although more specific. MOS shouldn't be too different between broad and narrow topic articles, since it's meant to give consistency across the encyclopedia.

Optional questions from Staraction

7. What inspired your username, if anything?

A: Those are just my initials. When I made an account, I didn't think about anybody having to read or type them. I've tried to format my signature a bit to make it easier: Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk)

8. What are your thoughts on artificial intelligence being used to edit Wikipedia, especially among newer users?

A: It's complicated, which is why I imagine policy creation for AI content is moving slowly. The current types of generative AI work with language, not facts. This means that the more linguistic a task is, the more helpful the AI can be. For some examples, Google Translate uses a neural machine translation system, and Grammarly a large language model (LLM). To an extent, you can use a chatbot-style LLM for linguistic tasks like checking MOS compliance or explaining uncommented code.

AI will fail when given more fact-based or research-heavy tasks. This makes them nearly useless for creating content because:

• Hallucinations are an inherent result of how LLMs create plausible content without knowing the facts.
• An LLM does not know when it plagiarizes. When I tested a Gemini prompt that another editor suggested for fact-checking on the Kitab-ı Bahriye article, I found that the AI copied portions of its answer from another Wikipedia article without attribution. This goes hand in hand with the tendency to cite non-existent sources. An editor unfamiliar with the possible sources on a topic wouldn't have a way to catch when an LLM fabricates and plagiarizes sources.
• Also, LLMs have biases that they cannot confront. By design, they can only amplify FUTON (Full Text On the Net) bias.

A problem for new editors, in particular, is that they will see more AI advertising hype than Wikipedia discussions about why the current generative AI models cannot create encyclopedic content. A new editor creating an article entirely from LLM output may legitimately not realize how this can be disruptive. Earlier this month another editor and I cleaned up an article on a notable individual that seemed to be the result of someone running their notes through an LLM.

Optional questions from Daniel Case

9. Outside of Wikipedia, have you ever held positions analogous to adminship, i.e. involving the trust of a great deal of people, and the exercise of authority not granted everyone involved, including taking adverse actions? You can discuss details to the extent you feel comfortable doing so.

A: Yes.

10. If you have that experience, how would it inform your use of the admin tools?

A: Working in healthcare has some parallels to adminship. When providing and organizing behavioral health services, one will have private information regarding clients that must be omitted from communication. For example, if a client won't be available on a certain day, there is no need to include the client's name or reason for absence when notifying staff. Staff working with the client will know their name, and the client or family can disclose their reasons if they wish. I have heard that people sometimes privately email an admin about concerns with paid editing. If I received that type of email, I'd share the paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org email address and the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline with the reporting editor, so that a CheckUser or member of the Arbitration Committee could follow up. I would not share any details of their correspondence

Optional question from Andrew D.

11. I was going to ask about your account name but I see that's covered above. But your user page is a bit light on personal information so I'd like to know you better. I see that the lead picture on your user page is a Woodie and I'm curious about that as my father had a UK equivalent. I suppose the picture mainly illustrates your preference for fixing up existing articles but is there anything more to it please?

A: I tend to be private. I believe I chose that image to represent collaboration after I asked my brother to help replace the windshield wiper motor in my Crown Vic (a very different type of Ford). The replacement part fit, but as soon as I activated the wipers, the metal bar attached to the motor caught on something until it was chucked several yards clear of the car. My brother filmed it and helped me figure out what to grind down. The collaboration turned a frustration into something to connect over and laugh about. Though I don't put many personal details on my user page, I did add a few more of my own photos of places that spoke to my heart after reading your question.

Optional question from HwyNerd Mike

12. This will be my second and last question. Recently, there has been claims of bias on Wikipedia by many news organizations, describing Wikipedia as left-ist. How would you describe the current status of bias at Wikipedia now?

A:

Optional questions from Robert McClenon

13. Do you have any specific ideas for how to minimize the damage to Wikipedia from the use of artificial intelligence?

A: Yes, there are two overlapping approaches I see as clearly helpful.

First, it helps to have explicit policies on the types of AI use that are not currently accepted in practice. Some editors misread the advisory nature of the essay WP:LLM to mean that forms of AI use not explicitly banned are acceptable. Two solid steps in this direction are the WP:G15 speedy deletion criteria for articles with implausible or nonexistent references, and the recently proposed guideline.

Second, it's important to explain, to newer editors especially, why certain types of AI use are damaging. AI is used by undisclosed paid editors to quickly churn out articles, but it's also used by well-intentioned contributors who are just unaware of conversations like these. For someone who has been hearing how amazing AI is, and has been using it to proofread their essays and suggest recipes based on the contents of their fridge, it may not be at all clear why the same software damages Wikipedia when asked to create encyclopedic content or write talk page messages.

14. Do you have any specific ideas for how to minimize the damage to Wikipedia from paid editing and especially from undisclosed paid editing?

A:

Optional question from Ritchie333

15. There are elections happening soon. I'm wondering why you chose to run now instead of stand for election ?

A:

Discussion

• Links for Rjjiii: Rjjiii (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Rjjiii 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. Oh finally I can be the first support on one of my RfAs!!!! Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
2. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
3. Ternera (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
4. Easy support, trusted nominators and fantastic answers to the questions. CoconutOctopus talk 18:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
5. Support definitely a great Wikipedia editor! His content creation work is awesome!! JuniperChill (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
6. Trustworthy nominators, I enjoyed reading Ívar Bárðarson. Polygnotus (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
7. Per CoconutOctopus. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
8. Looks good, has the experience. CNC (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
9. As nom, —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
10. Absolutely. Lynch44 19:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
11. Excellent content record, good judgement, demonstrated use-case for the tools. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
12. Content looks great; just read Night and it was indeed beautiful. Touchdown! NicheSports (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
13. Support: It's rare that a candidate has so capably contributed content in such controversial subject areas and has demonstrated such steadiness. It's especially rare to see the same editor have such a clear use for the tools. Good luck with the mop! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
14. Support, obvious and easy descision. -- Sohom (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
15. – robertsky (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
16. Zzz plant (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
17. Sustained record of good judgement; no concerns. Arcticocean ■ 19:44, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
18. Enjoyed watching this user work on Good article Rodney, Mississippi. jengod (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
19. Support. -- asilvering (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
20. Easy support! The linked "Roswell myth contributors" chart shows an exceptional dedication to sorting which content deserves inclusion. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 20:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
21. Support Consistently impressed with their contributions at DYK. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
22. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
23. Have seen the candidate around and only had positive impressions of their work and demeanor. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
24. Support - no concerns, and I like the candidate's answers a lot. Brat Forelli🦊 20:24, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
25. Support no concerns here, would be comfortable with them having the tools. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
26. I'm not familiar with this candidate so I checked a random sample of their contributions. I found nothing of concern.—S Marshall T/C 20:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
27. Support without reservation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:39, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
28. Support - Will be a net benefit. Let'srun (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
29. Sure charlotte ^👸♥ 20:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
30. Support --Minoa (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
31. Support. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 21:17, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
32. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
33. Support SamuelNelsonGISP (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
34. Heck yeah! Toadspike [Talk] 21:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
35. They will make a great admin. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
36. Why not? UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 22:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
37. Of course! Looking forward to having another half sibling :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:10, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
38. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
39. Support Good luck. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
40. Surprising amount of work, and I see his brilliant efforts in rewriting articles and having the exceptional amount of patience to do the proper research and sourcing. As nom has said, I am astounded by his work at Night  4, so support. HwyNerd Mike (tokk) 22:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
41. Happily! Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 23:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
42. Support – The work on Night and Roswell was impressive! I stand by my appraisal of their closure; I wish all editors took the same time and care to close discussions! FaviFake (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
43. Daniel (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
44. Support – Why isn't he already an admin?! Renerpho (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
45. Support This editor is clearly in need of the tools to assist with the fantastic work already being accomplished at DYK. Joyous! Noise! 00:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
46. Support - Trusted nominators, appropriate answers. Full trust. Good luck! — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 01:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
47. Support Elli (talk | contribs) 01:28, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
48. Support: No concerns! KuyaMoHirowo • he/him (DM me on Discord at kuyamohirowo (DMs are open!)) :3 01:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
49. Support would make a great admin… just get the mop already. Seanwk :) ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:06, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
50. Support Looks to be highly qualified. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
51. Support The candidate has done some incredible writing I was especially impressed at their listed best contribution it is a night and day difference. They also have a great record at afd with very detailed !votes and a high match rate. I have no doubt they will do a great job as an Admin. GothicGolem29 (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
52. Support Flip them bits. fanfanboy (block_talk) 02:42, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
53. Support Excellent candidate. A 99% match rate at AfD that doesn't consist of pile-on votes, but is instead over multiple months is unheard of! Also gave a great answer to my question (5) and I respect that they started by first giving credit to their collaborators! I wish them well and look forward to hopefully interacting with them on the project in the future! 11WB (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
54. Support ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
55. Support. Passes my requirements. Also could've sworn I voted earlier. CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 03:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
56. Support, wow! Graham87 (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
57. Support: Seems like a constructive and competent editor. I also don't see anything negative about the editor. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
58. Support. Thanks for volunteering. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
59. Support and thanks for volunteering! --SHB2000 (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
60. Support. I am very satisfied with the nominator's responses, ranging from content creation to administrative duties. I mean, their contribution to Night is already impressive, but their explanation of the writing process is superb and in-depth (in fact, this gives me the confidence to rewrite Archimedes' screw, an article I've been thinking about for a while now). They can also handle disputes professionally and maturely, which is vital for an admin. All the best :) Icepinner 08:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
61. Support with no concerns. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:10, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
62. Support great to have admins with a variety of focus areas, including improving articles. Don't have any concerns. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
63. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 11:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
64. Support MCE89 (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
65. Easy support from me. We've interacted once or twice at FAC and elsewhere, and I've only good things to say. Will be great value, I'm sure. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:12, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
66. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
67. —Kusma (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
68. Support - looks like a great candidate and my hat's off to anyone willing to endure a week of wiki hazing MisawaSakura (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
69. Support - seems perfect for the job. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
70. Support - well-qualified, with good content and AfD work, and I'm impressed with the answer to question 8. Staraction (talk | contribs) 15:16, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
71. Why not? --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
72. Support - I don't see why not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
73. Support per noms. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
74. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
75. Support Such a well-qualified candidate! My only small quibble is that their (certain) appointment as an admin may lose the project a most excellent writer and editor as the multitude of needs requiring an admin might well begin to occupy much of their time. That's not a qualification of my support, just a small note of (potential) future regret for what might have been. C'est la vie, as the saying goes.Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:15, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

    They have stated they plan continue to write after becoming an admin so hopefully they will be able to do both if they wish. GothicGolem29 (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

76. per noms —Ingenuity (t • c) 17:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
77. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 17:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
78. Support - Solid candidate. They were also very helpful with my first DYK nomination. DraconicDark (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
79. Salvio ^giuliano 17:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
80. Support Stellar contributions to the project and thoughtful, well-written answers to the RFA questions. Steven Walling • talk 18:06, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
81. Support because of nominators, amazing contributions, and great answers to questions. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 18:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
82. Support Sure, why not. Trusted nominators, great contributions, good answers to questions. I especially like the answer regading LLMs. LightlySeared (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
83. Support Will make an excellent addition to the team. Schwede66 18:38, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
84. Support Fathoms Below (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
85. Support No concerns. Intothatdarkness 19:16, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
86. Support, with apologies to Rjjiii for any unwanted and unwarranted drama that being in the role might bring. BD2412 T 20:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
87. dbeef [talk] 21:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
88. sapphaline (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
89. Support Thank you for volunteering! YuniToumei (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
90. Support Clear net benefit. Gizza (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
91. Support. An easy one, their two FAs are plentiful evidence of their grasp of content creation in all of its multifaceted glory, while their aplomb during the FAC reviews - especially the opinion-magnet Roswell incident - clearly demonstrate the appropriate attitude. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
92. Support - although I believe WP:NOBIGDEAL, here is a case where there is a clear benefit to Wikipedia were this candidate to have the extra buttons. I don't find anything disqualifying the candidate. Not a jerk, has oodles of clue. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
93. Support Hi! HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 01:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
94. Support: Seems like a net positive. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
95. I've seen them around DYK and related areas. I don't have any cause for concern. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
96. Support. No concerns. Fade258 (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
97. Support. Bearian (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
98. Support based on the candidate's clear qualifications, their good answers to the questions so far, and my high level of trust and respect for both nominators. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
99. Support - no concerns. ~delta ^{(talk • cont)} 03:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
100. Support A content-focused admin 😍 JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 04:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
101. Support Of course. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
102. Support Having seen them around at DYK, it seems like RJJ has their head screwed on properly. TarnishedPath^talk 06:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
103. Support. Best wishes.. Volten001 ^☎ 09:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
104. Support Plutus 💬 mess — Fortune favors the curious 09:38, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
105. Support I think Rjjiii will be a wonderful admin. Phuzion (talk) 11:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
106. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
107. Support. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
108. Support, no reason to think they'd abuse the tools. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
109. Had a positive experience with them, happy to voice my support 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
110. Support - looks good to me. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
111. Support will be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
112. Support – one of those "wait they aren't already?" cases. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
113. Support, no reason to think they'd abuse the tools. Guettarda (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
114. Support, though the username makes me a bit cross-eyed. Travellers & Tinkers (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
115. Support. No problems here! Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
116. Support Hey man im josh (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
117. Support Will be fine. Good luck! Fish+Karate 16:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
118. Support Tazerdadog (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
119. Support Nil🥝 18:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
120. Support Will be a great addition. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
121. Support. Not only do they do good solid work and low on conflicts with other editors, for once I can give unreserved support. They added significant content to the Blackberry article, which is a plant, making them officially a Plantipedia editor! No need to call out the Green Knight to cut off their head, its Christmas for... 🌿MtBotany (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
122. Support - No concerns whatsoever, a trustworthy candidate. Thank you for volunteering! Netherzone (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
123. Support - Had a chance to work with Rjjiii on Rodney, Mississippi. A quality contributor and someone I trust with the tools. Jordano⁵³ 21:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
124. Support Skynxnex (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
125. Support No concerns at all from me.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
126. Support.—Alalch E. 22:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
127. Support. Good content and good procedural work at DYK. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral From occasional glimpses at random pages, they seem like a good editor. However, nothing in the answers makes me believe they would be a good admin(or a bad one). Hence, a neutral vote. HSLover/DWF (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

General comments

• Happy to see another request for adminship so soon after the last(especially given how long there was between the previous one and the RFA before that.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 15:46, 26 October 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.