Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Edit links
Page extended-confirmed-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"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
Chipmunkdavis 105 0 0 100 Open 10:32, 30 June 2026 6 days, 10 hours no report
TechnoSquirrel69 56 0 0 100 Open 17:15, 30 June 2026 6 days, 17 hours no report
The current time is 23:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC). — Purge this page
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Chipmunkdavis 105 0 0 100 Open 10:32, 30 June 2026 6 days, 10 hours no report
TechnoSquirrel69 56 0 0 100 Open 17:15, 30 June 2026 6 days, 17 hours no report
The current time is 23:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC). — Purge this page
Shortcuts

Requests for adminship (RfA) is one of two processes 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, the other process to confer adminship, take place every five months.[1] Prospective administrators may freely choose which process to use. The next administrator election is scheduled for October 2026.

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 (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N/⁠A %
Bonadea AE Elected 20 May 2026 384 58 104 87
Asukite AE Elected 20 May 2026 371 57 118 87
Bobby Cohn AE Elected 20 May 2026 364 56 126 87
Sammi Brie AE Elected 20 May 2026 414 82 50 83
Ca AE Elected 20 May 2026 361 76 109 83
Drm310 AE Elected 20 May 2026 337 72 137 82
Reconrabbit AE Elected 20 May 2026 356 80 110 82

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).[2] 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.[3] 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.[4] 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".[5] 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

Shortcut

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.[6]

Current nominations for adminship

The current time is 23:36:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

Chipmunkdavis

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (105/0/0); Scheduled to end 10:32, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Monitors:

Nomination

Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) – It is a rare thing for me to introduce a candidate for adminship who has been editing longer than I have, but that is my happy task today. Chipmunkdavis, or CMD, is a veteran of Wikipedia. He has accumulated more than 77,000 edits over his 16 years on the project, concentrating on creating and improving content. His 12 Good Articles include heavyweight topics like the Politics of the Philippines. He has also been a voice of reason and calm in discussions of some fraught sociopolitical topics, which is where I first noticed him (some examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). CMD is well-placed to chip in with the admin toolset in content-adjacent areas, like DYK and new page review, and in dispute resolution. Their experience will make them a great asset to the admin corps, and I hope you join me in supporting them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination statement 1

It's my pleasure to co-nominate Chipmunkdavis for adminship. In addition to the GA highlighted by Vanamonde93, CMD's other GAs include big topics like Malaysia, Timor-Leste and Papua New Guinea; they were twice a prize winner twice in The Core Contest. Their article creation spans a large diversity of topics, from the Asphendou Cave petroglyphs to the Noken system, which has resulted in an impressive 72 DYK nominations. This, together with experience building DYK prep sets, gives me confidence they will be able to quickly pick up further administrative tasks at DYK.

We've crossed paths quite a few times in climate-change related articles, and I have always been impressed with their calm and concise communication style, including when discussions run hot. I believe they would be a strong and steady addition to the administrator team, and I commend them to the community for consideration. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination statement 2

Chipmunkdavis is excellent at staying cool in heated discussions and focusing on the evidence. This can be seen in his work on some of our most important articles, highlighted by my colleagues above, but also in his work at AfD. On many occasions, CMD's thorough and nuanced overview of the situation determines the outcome of a discussion (1, 2, 3). At Isaac Newton's apple tree, the closer mentioned CMD and another editor by name for providing a decisive argument. At Mount Baya, CMD identified likely citogenesis, which significantly improved on the nomination statement and resulted in the article being redirected. CMD's close analysis of sources and dedication to verifiability can be seen plenty of other discussions (4, 5, 6, 7). This is what we need in our admins: the patience to examine potential issues in detail and the ability to recognize the best outcome for the encyclopedia. Toadspike [Talk] 07:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination, and am grateful to my nominators. I have never edited for pay, although I have received travel grants from the WMF to attend events. I have no other active or past accounts.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: I have become increasingly aware that whenever I add to an administrative backlog (such as AIV, RfPP, CSD), I am passing work onto others. I would like to reduce that burden slightly. I do not expect to be immediately rushing into any particular area, even those I am already familiar with. However, I hope to contribute further as I become more familiar with the tools, such as at the aforementioned backlogs, as well as DYK, and perhaps SPI and CCI.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My answer to this probably changes as often as my contributions. Recently, I was able to develop some articles about Papua New Guinea to mark the country’s 50th anniversary of independence, submitting them to a few areas of the main page. I had a six-article DYK in October, including a mix of new articles and x5 expansions, which I was quite happy with finishing within the DYK time limit. Going further back, I have managed to participate in a couple of WP:The Core Contests. On the backend side, I try to spend time helping out with the GAN and DYK processes, including helping manage reviews, and at one point clearing up all the duplications on the GA lists.
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 am often conflict-averse, but have been involved in various disagreements and discussions since I began editing. My initial exposure to Wikipedia dispute resolution was a huge discussion about how to list sovereign states, which involved many editors and went through multiple rounds of discussion. However, it remained broadly civil and produced a stable consensus that has held for over a decade since. I have taken principles learned then to heart, and have continued to learn, especially following lapses. Key lessons I took on board include that editing per consensus means willingness to accept decisions you are not 100% aligned with, that sometimes there are big questions which simply don't have a 'right' answer, and that the community manages to work things out in the end.

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 EggRoll97
4. A user has requested that a page be unprotected. The page has been semi-protected for the last 5 years, was originally indefinitely protected, and the original protecting admin is no longer engaged in editing Wikipedia. No CTOPS concerns apply to the page. How do you proceed if you were to determine what to do with this page?
A: In general, page protection is not an ideal state due to limiting the number of potential edits. Examining such a request would require checking the history leading up to the protection, the level of disruption that may have occurred since, and the reason for the request. Assuming no active admins were involved and there had been little disruption over the five years, a WP:TRYUNPROT would seem a reasonable request, and I would keep an eye on the results. CMD (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Andrew D.
5. I've noticed your account name before and always found it mildly puzzling because it sounds like it means something but I couldn't place it. Please explain its origin or meaning.
A:

Discussion

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

Numerated (#) "votes" in the "Support", "Oppose", and "Neutral" sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account. All other comments are welcome in the "general comments" section.

Support
  1. Of course. Toadspike [Talk] 10:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Been waiting for this one. See also: the ‘kind of already thought they were an admin’ test. Eddie891 Talk Work 10:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Hey man im josh (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Always attentive to details in high- and low-visibility areas. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, I trust all 3 nominators immensely and everything looks great here. CoconutOctopus talk 11:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support more please. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support If there is space for more co-noms, I would have gladly joined in. – robertsky (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support: I've always been impressed by their demeanor before. :) Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 11:56, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - per seeing their work and demeanor over a long period of time. Excellent candidate. Highly trusted nominators on top of that. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 12:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, per nominators and own experiences. I’m surprised CMD isn’t an admin given their tenure (I would love to further expand but I currently have very limited time). Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 12:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, not sure we have crossed paths but strong noms and running through my normal checks looks like a good candidate. KylieTastic (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, in addition to doing well when I've seen Chipmunkdavis around—if you can get nominations from the three I see here, you're most certainly doing something right. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - no doubt that they will be an excellent addition to the admin corps. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Wait, you're telling me CMD is not an admin yet? OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:27, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - Promising candidate. Good responses to the questions to boot ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Zzz plant (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 13:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Lynch44 14:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - easy one. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - Long time coming. CMD has done a lot of great work to keep the community in line and written many articles, the latter which is a great plus. Have fun with the mop, CMD. Seloloving (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Yes please. • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 14:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support slam dunk. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:43, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  25. I checked a random sample of this candidate's contributions, and found nothing of concern.—S Marshall T/C 14:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support — Strong nomination, trust nominators on candidate. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 14:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. A user I immediately recognize as knowledgeable and coolheaded, CMD would be a great addition to the admin corps. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:56, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Intothatdarkness 14:56, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support! In my interactions with him, I've known CMD to be nothing but a patient, knowledgeable, and competent editor. —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Another member of the "I thought you were already" club. RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, very impressed by the candidate's work at DYK and seems like they will be a positive addition to the admin corps. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Ooh, very exciting, I've known CMD for many many years, since I was working on Rwanda and we were both active in the WikiProject Countries space. An excellent Wikipedian, more than competent to wield the mop, and thanks for stepping up to help.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:28, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support belatedly, as nominator. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support with pleasure! 📎 JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 15:42, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support as good a candidate as can be. Rand Freeman talk ⬩ in solidarity 15:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support — a longstanding contributor with a cool, calm demeanor every time I see them around :). GoldRomean (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support: Thank you for your work! YuniToumei (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Rolluik (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Love to see new admins with a couple of GAs under their belt 😄 In addition to the above, I'm happy to support! Johnson524 16:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, more belatedly as nom. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:18, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Clear net positive, keeps his cool. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  46. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support! —TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 16:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support, a tireless contributor. Thepharoah17 (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support! Destinyokhiria (talk / cont) 16:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support, per all above. Best, Staraction (talk · contribs) 16:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  51. That would be affirmative. Resoundingly. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Has a clue; not a jerk. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 16:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support per nom TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support ULPS (talk • contribs) 16:56, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support, don't think I've participated at RfA before, but CMD is seriously a model editor, not an overstatement. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support, this one's obvious. I'm excited for the impact CMD will have on the project as an administrator. --tony 17:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support thank you for volunteering and improving global coverage that serves our global audience. ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support ~delta {talk • cont • 🇰🇷 • 🎢} 17:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Maw Htun Aung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) would be in poorer shape were it not for CMD's patience, diligence, assistance at {{Did you know nominations/Maw Htun Aung}}. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  60. In my interactions with CMD I particularly appreciated when they would be comfortable leaving room for uncertainty. Good luck! --Joy (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Excellent content contributions and experience in resolving content disputes. — Newslinger talk 17:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Oh good! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Best of luck! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 17:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - great candidate. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 17:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support – LuniZunie(talk) 17:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Up here Supporting someones RfA rn. fanfanboy (blocktalk) 17:56, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. I honestly thought he was already an administrator. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:10, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support per noms. From previous experience interacting with CMD, the candidate is helpful and trustworthy. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support! Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 18:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support very happily. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Consistently impressed with their contributions to DYK and elsewhere. As a side note, every time I see someone say "I thought they already were an admin" I'm reminded that people somehow edit without a username highlighter. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  73. —Ingenuity (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - happy to have a such a prolific and proficient Wikipedian added to the admin pool. C679 18:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Looks good to me. Happy with the answer to Q4, personally, which demonstrates a familiarity with one of the core areas they intend to be active in. EggRoll97 (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 19:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support, thank you for running. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 19:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  78. —Kusma (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. Aoba47 (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Yay! charlotte 👸♥ 19:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  82. I unironically thought CMD was already an admin. Well, let's fix that oversight. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support NicheSports (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Cicada1010 (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support happily. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support without a question. LightlySeared (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support FaviFake (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  88. You love to see it! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support per nom. Best of luck! signed, A Random Hylian (Parry)(swing) 20:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support EaglesFan37 (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Super excited to see this :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. I have no serious concerns. thunkii (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Saw the name, already know they'll do great in the role. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:10, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support Passes my (minimal) standards for content, know of no reason to oppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support Pretty decent editor based on my memory. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Obvious support. Bishonen | tålk 21:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC).[reply]
  99. Support Mfield (Oi!) 21:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support. User is a chipmunk, but also the GOAT of geography editors. His content work is incredible, and his work in some heavy-hitting areas demonstrates clear commitment to and understanding of Wikipedia's policy. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support Solid. Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support. Yes, yes, yes. I didn't have to think for long about this one. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Splendid Girth Summit (blether) 22:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support! In solidarity, nil nz 22:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support. Would make a good addition. Mellk (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose


Neutral


General comments

TechnoSquirrel69

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (56/0/0); Scheduled to end 17:15, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Monitors:

Nomination

TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to (finally) nominate TechnoSquirrel69 for adminship. TS69 first came to my attention at WP:PERM/AP, where he frequently nominates editors and meticulously examines the editing history of existing nominees. His sound judgement makes decisions much easier for patrolling admins. Other work stemming from their New page patrolling is equally excellent: TS69’s CSD log shows high-quality tagging for instance.

Their content work is also outstanding, and includes an FA that grew out of a WP:Women in Red drive, and further work to combat systemic bias on Wikipedia includes their role as a coordinator of the Developing Countries WikiContest. TS69 communicates kindly but firmly, and would make a great addition to the admin corps. I hope you will join me in supporting him for adminship. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination statement

At WCNA 2025, I had the pleasure of meeting TechnoSquirrel69; he was given at least 8 lighthearted but serious offers for nominations during the conference, myself included. After caching the nomination offer over the wintertime, I'm overjoyed to put TechnoSquirrel forward for adminship alongside Femke. Like her, I noted his diligence at requests for autopatrolled, where he was consistently respectful, calibrated quickly to existing standards, and significantly reduced admin workload while simultaneously encouraging and teaching other editors how to write better articles. Beyond what Femke mentioned, he does excellent work at WP:DYK, which my own forays into promoting and checking queues have seen no issues, squirrels away at NPP and WP:AFC, organizes local meetups, and provides high quality XFD participation. TechnoSquirrel is at his core a kind, competent, and community-building editor that would do fantastic with administrator tools. Sennecaster (Chat) 16:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm honored to have Femke and Sennecaster's nominations — I accept! I have not edited for pay. —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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: Over the years, I've found myself working in many areas adjacent to administrative tasks. My main reason for running is so I can better contribute in these areas with extra buttons: I would be able to close XfDs as delete, deal with patently inappropriate pages I encounter at new pages patrol, make urgent changes on cascade-protected pages for Did you know, or action requests for permissions. If given a mop, I will not be wanting for places to use it. —TS
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Writing articles was my first love on this website, and I consider myself to be, first and foremost, a content contributor. I'm very proud of my work on my largest projects: Castle in the Sky, Princess Mononoke, and The Snow Queen (Kernaghan novel). The latter's FAC taught me a lot about navigating the high expectations for featured articles, including deeper understanding of copyright policies and prose standards. On the back end, I helped establish and coordinate the Developing Countries WikiContest, a project to fight systemic bias in the encyclopedia; we're now coming up on our third annual installment! I've also found scouting out possible nominees for Editor of the Week to be highly rewarding. —TS
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: Some disputes are unavoidable on Wikipedia, and when they happen I strive to see the best in other editors, even when faced with less-than-ideal behavior, in the belief that we have the common goal of improving the encyclopedia. One incident in which I commented on a request for autopatrolled escalated into a disagreement with the requestor. Though it got under my skin, I made sure to step away until I could respond with my better judgement on my side. For a more recent example, an ANI thread was opened relating to a mass message request I handled. I accepted responsibility for my part in the error, politely but firmly argued against the proposed administrative actions I felt were unnecessary, and deferred to my more experienced colleagues when they joined the conversation. —TS

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 TonyBallioni
4. Would you mind addressing your block log? Particularly the recent account compromise, but I think the older block would also be useful to get some context behind.
A:Thanks for your question, TonyBallioni! From what I was told by volunteer functionaries and WMF Trust and Safety (which was, understandably, limited by their non-disclosure agreements), an attacker exploited a security vulnerability with several accounts at once, including my own. This vulnerability was not in my control; I had otherwise taken every step to secure my account, including a strong password, a recovery email, and two-factor authentication. (Barkeep's comment below is correct. Thanks, Barkeep!) The attacker never succeeded at accessing my account, but it was nevertheless blocked and globally locked for safety until the vulnerability was patched.
My previous block, from five years ago, was for cause. As a new editor, I had yet to develop an understanding of Wikipedia's copyright policies, and uploaded several copyright-infringing illustrations for the drafts I was working on. After I understood where I'd gone wrong, I apologized and successfully appealed the block. The incident left me with a heightened awareness of Wikipedia's stance on copyright compliance, and I've since grown much more familiar with the area as a new pages patroller. —TS

Discussion

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his 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. First! Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 17:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Been keeping an eye on this one for a while, support. ~delta {talk • cont • 🇰🇷 • 🎢} 17:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes! --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sure. I've had plenty of positive experiences with this user. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 17:27, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Obviously GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 17:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. As nom, In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 17:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support haven't had a bad experience when interacting with them, no concerns from me. – LuniZunie(talk) 17:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I especially enjoyed reading Capitol Hill mystery soda machine. Rolluik (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support We seem to have a habit of doing RfAs in batches as of recent. fanfanboy (blocktalk) 17:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, nothing but positive impressions from his prolific and constructive work at DYK. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Unhesitating support. I've worked with TS69 before, and been impressed with their calm and diligence. They've done excellent content work and excellent project-space work, and they are a natural addition to the admin corps. I would have nominated if that had not been thoroughly redundant. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Zzz plant (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - I've both met the candidate in person and seen his work on wiki and have no issues with this candidacy. The noms pretty much sum it up. The only significant block (aside from the suspected account compromise, which was thankfully resolved quickly) was from over five years ago, I don't think it is a problem today if the problem hasn't recurred. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  15. finally!!! I've been hoping TechnoSquirrel would run for a long time – nothing but good things to say about him and his DYK work. he's sharp, diligent, kind, and always willing to hold himself to account – I have full confidence in TS and I'd be delighted to see what someone with his skills could do with a mop. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:28, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support! Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 18:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I've been badgering TS69 to run since last year, so glad that they finally have gone for it! -- Sohom (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Long overdue! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I have had nothing but good experiences of our friend here. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 18:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  21. This is an editor I have run into several times and I can recall being impressed with their work, Support. Lynch44 18:41, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Reasonable response to my question. Thanks for being willing to answer it directly even as others had already responded to the main part. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, extremely overdue. Best, Staraction (talk · contribs) 18:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Good answer to block question: TS69 stumbled with first edits, recovered appropriately after the block. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 19:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, naturally. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 19:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Looks fine. EggRoll97 (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Absolutely! Trusted noms and they do good work. CoconutOctopus talk 19:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Aoba47 (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  30. —Kusma (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Flock yes. charlotte 👸♥ 19:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  32. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  33. I've had the pleasure to meet him in person and he's a lovely lad and would make a great admin. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support! A kind, productive contributor who will do well with the tools. GoldRomean (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Excited to see him finally go for the mop. I anticipate him being a great admin. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Cicada1010 (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Don't see why not. LightlySeared (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support FaviFake (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support EaglesFan37 (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support A nice person that should have already been an administrator. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Rand Freeman talk ⬩ in solidarity 20:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Excellent candidate. Thank you for running. Toadspike [Talk] 20:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  44. Absolutely! I have always been impressed with TS69’s wide range of talents, from content creation to his work countering systemic bias through the Developing Countries WikiContest. But most importantly, I love how he makes it his mission to spread kindness, whether through his frequent nominations at editor of the week or giving thoughtful barnstars to others.

    For what it's worth, I'll put my name down as another functionary who can confirm the compromised account was not his fault in any way. At all. He did everything right. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Easy support. TS has been a patient and diligent editor whose expertise will be put to great use with mop in hand. ThaesOfereode (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  47. —Ingenuity (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Thought he already was an admin! Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. I have no serious concerns. thunkii (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Wait, he's not an admin? —TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 21:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Mfield (Oi!) 21:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Squirrels are cool, and this user has also done great collaboratory work on the backend side of Wikipedia. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Chipmunks, squirrels - any other competent and effective woodland creatures want to put themselves forward today? Girth Summit (blether) 22:42, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support! In solidarity, nil nz 22:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support: Thank you for stepping up! YuniToumei (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. He is helpful at peer reviews, and I am confident he will do well as an administrator. Z. Patterson (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose


Neutral


General comments
  • @TonyBallioni: while the block was appropriate at the time under policy, there was nothing TechnoSquirrel69 could have done to avoid the situation. This is not at all similar to previous situations where a compromise happened due to things like reusing passwords. I don't want to reveal something that I know by virtue of being a checkuser and which is covered by the ANPDP, so if there's more public information on that situation I hope Techno or someone else will post it here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

About RfB

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

Shortcut

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.

For RfA participants

History and statistics

Removal of adminship

Noticeboards

Permissions

Footnotes

  1. ^ permanently authorised in an RfC held in early 2025
  2. ^ Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
  3. ^ Voting was restricted to editors with the extended confirmed right following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
  4. ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
  5. ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.
  6. ^ Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=1360794888"