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
Vermont	115	3	0	97	Open	03:52, 7 October 2026	6 days, 3 hours	no	report

The current time is 00:03, 1 October 2026 (UTC). —

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Vermont	115	3	0	97	Open	03:52, 7 October 2026	6 days, 3 hours	no	report

The current time is 00:03, 1 October 2026 (UTC). —

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. Prospective administrators may freely choose which process to use. There is an an administrator election currently in progress; visit Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2026 for further information.

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	%
Dclemens1971	RfA	Successful	27 Aug 2026	206	1	2	>99
MCE89	RfA	Successful	20 Jul 2026	182	6	4	97
Staraction	RfA	Successful	20 Jul 2026	169	9	2	95
TechnoSquirrel69	RfA	Successful	30 Jun 2026	201	0	1	100
Chipmunkdavis	RfA	Successful	30 Jun 2026	208	0	0	100
Bonadea	AE	Elected	20 May 2026	384	58	104	87
Asukite	AE	Elected	20 May 2026	371	57	118	87

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 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 00:03:28, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

---

if nominations have not updated.

---

Vermont

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (115/3/0); Scheduled to end 03:52, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Monitors: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:21, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Nomination

Vermont (talk · contribs) – It is with a great deal of excitement that I present to you Vermont (Rae) for consideration as an administrator. Rae's journey is one whose common thread is a desire to help out when and where possible to stop vandalism and the degradation of our content that vandals bring. That journey now brings them here to RfA as they have recently been spending more time here on English Wikipedia. They bring a long track record of accomplishments that make them well suited to earning your support.

I first got to know Vermont shortly after they had passed RfA on Simple English, when we would both assist users with questions in the IRC help channel. Already they were showing their knowledge not just in one project but across projects. For a number of years Rae's work would primarily take them to other projects culminating in becoming a Steward, a position they've held since 2022.

However, this RfA isn't about asking our community to grant administrator to someone coming from the outside. Rae's global work shows their trust and competency with advanced tools like Checkuser. Their work here shows that they are ready and competent to be an English Wikipedia admin. They have edited every year since 2016 accumulating over 15,000 edits, which is more edits than I had when I passed RFA. They have shown their competency as a content editor, with two GAs and through their work investigating possible copyright violations. They have also shown their ability to understand how vandalism works on English Wikipedia through their exemplary work as a clerk at Sockpuppet investigations.

Often at RfA, we're making a calculated risk as a community that someone will be, in the words of TonyBallioni's, someone who "has a clue, not a jerk". In this case we have a long track record of competency and collaborativeness which makes this far less of a risk. I hope you will join me in supporting Vermont as an English Wikipedia admin. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:31, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Co-nomination statement

I first met Rae very shortly after I created my account. Time and time again, they've proven to be invaluable to so many editors, including myself. They are a massive part of why I ran for administrator, let alone why I am here today to offer a co-nomination statement. Everything I can say is inadequate to really capture what they do already and could offer with the administrator tools.

Rae practically trained me to work the info-en and permissions queues at VRT, both of which require high-level knowledge of English Wikipedia copyright, BLP, verifiability, and COI policies. I've taken that level and skill in mentorship that I received and applied it to my own areas—copyright primarily. Additionally, they have a talent for CopyPatrol and copyright problems, where their consistent activity has given administrators monitoring CAT:RD1 a constant stream of requests to handle. Their trainee copyright clerkship was primarily so I and the other clerks/admins active there could get them comfortable with how copyright problems worked; they already had every skill needed to actually work on investigations.

I have full trust that Rae knows what they are doing in every area they edit in, and that their restraint in knowing where they don't know something is some of the best on the project. Not to mention their SPI work, cross-wiki expertise, and abundance of cute squirrel photos. Please join me and Barkeep in supporting them for adminship. Sennecaster (Chat) 03:43, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 03:52, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I am employed by the WMF in Movement Communications and all related edits are made under my staff account, RAdimer-WMF (talk · contribs · count). Edits made by Vermont are entirely in my volunteer capacity. I have a handful of test accounts I've used for steward work, but no proper alt accounts. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 03:54, 30 September 2026 (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: I've been editing since 2016, and started out mostly patrolling recent changes and new pages. Around 2017 I learned that Simple English Wikipedia's antivandalism bot was down, so I moved there, and quickly realized all of their long-term vandals were cross-wiki vandals. From then I shifted to cross-wiki anti-abuse work, picking up admin/checkuser on Simple English Wikipedia and Meta-Wiki, and being elected as a steward in 2022. Earlier this year, I decided to go back to my roots and spend more time on English Wikipedia. I tried out DYK reviewing/promoting and completed my first GA review, but found the most enjoyment at CopyPatrol and SPI, where I could contribute with my steward background in investigations and administrative cleanup. At the moment, I am a copyright clerk and a trainee SPI clerk.

When cross-wiki abusers are reported to SPI, I can place global locks and clean up cross-wiki disruption (ex). For accounts whose disruption is limited to English Wikipedia, I need to request local admin actions instead of handling them myself (ex). With the tools, I'd be able to help out with SPI-related blocks, G5s, and case histmerges, without having to bother an admin to do it for me. On the copyright side, I focus on CopyPatrol, where RD1s and blocks are frequently necessary. I typically make RD1 requests using cv-revdel, and with the tools I'd be able to process copyright cleanup (mostly RD1s and G12s) myself and review other users' requests.

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

A: Most of my best contributions are outside of content; I like investigating things. It's what got me into cross-wiki anti-abuse and is what I've most loved doing here on English Wikipedia. I was excited to have helped with unearthing Gilbert by clearing the SPI backlog for the first time since 2022. I've enjoyed handling SPI cases involving cross-wiki abuse and incorporating other-wiki information into my investigations (ex). I also like investigations outside of sockpuppetry, such as this review of LA Weekly's shift from mostly local journalism to mostly hosting paid content, which was used in a recent discussion evaluating LA Weekly's use as a source.

Fitting my role as the stewards' very official Chief Squirrel Officer, I recently wrote Squirrel Census. Back when I was a newer editor, I created Charles Mattocks as part of a short series of articles about Vermont-born U.S. Civil War medal of honor recipients. I've also enjoyed periodic forays into internet culture topics, writing r/bald and Wrath Month.

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: Oh totally, it's core to the moderation work I've been a part of as a steward, where we handle cases involving everything from doxxing/harassment to UPE/spam to serious security incidents – basically, anything that can go wrong. I do not find this kind of work stressful, at least not anymore. This is where I find myself most capable and interested, because I can have the greatest impact in ensuring the safety of my fellow Wikipedians. For example, I have worked on a case where public communication about the details would have resulted in serious real-world harm to a Wikipedia editor. This was a rare moment of stress for me, but ultimately we were able to reach a resolution that preserved both the editor's privacy and the safety of our projects.

---

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 Daniel Case

4. Your RFA begins as we are gearing up for another round of administrator elections. This is a first since we started making that process available, so a question I often ask (more for research purposes than anything else) becomes unusually pertinent: What made you choose an RfA over elections?

A: For me, I prefer and am accustomed to public elections. As a steward, I was elected in a public open-comment election, and have been confirmed every year since in open-comment !voting (e.g., this year's). Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 13:52, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Optional question from BusterD

5. Would you like to explain Ritchie333's oppose?

A: Sure. Seven years ago, Ritchie was blocked for a violation of his interaction ban with Praxidicae after declining a CSD she'd placed. I participated in the ensuing discussion and questioned his actions leading up to the block. As I wrote in Q4, I prefer public elections and don't begrudge Ritchie his !vote. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 14:23, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

• Links for Vermont: Vermont (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Vermont.

---

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. As nom. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
2. Obviously. Sennecaster (Chat) 03:53, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
3. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 03:58, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

   Threw my signature in there to be the first supporter, but I've come up with something to say now. Shortly after I first met Rae a couple years ago I assumed they must've been an admin here. I find out that no, they're just a steward and a simplewiki admin and they do xwiki stuff. My immediate, seemingly self-evident conclusion was that they are not interested in enwiki adminship and that they just prefer to do simplewiki and steward work, because if they wanted enwiki adminship they would've gotten it years ago. This has been the only plausible explanation in my mind for why they are not an admin for years, so I was quite surprised to find this today. Strong support. 🐿️ Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 05:45, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

4. Squirrel I have complete trust in Rae and the English Wikipedia will benefit from their great experience. AntiCompositeNumber (they/them) (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
5. The few times I've seen Rae around, I've been able to tell they're an experienced user. In fact, I was surprised you weren't admin yet, until I remembered you were an admin on Simple English. ~ lily ^{my tree} ~ 04:02, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
6. With no hesitation and great enthusiasm. Immense experience in the anti-abuse backrooms, and also patient, kind, and helpful. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
7. fianlly Giraffer (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
8. Support Nothing but positive things to say EaglesFan37 (talk) 04:17, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
9. 🐿️ -- Sohom (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

   Support per Ritchie333's oppose, which appears to be retaliatory in nature. Standing up against an admin who was harassing another contributor and violating a IBAN to do so, is a positive attribute and something we should encouraging in future admins. In terms of content, besides 2 GAs and 4 DYKs, Rae has had a outsized impact on content contributors by establishing and managing the WP:Resource support pilot in their capacity as a member of WMF's movement communications team, where content contributors can put in requests to source hard to find physical books and the WMF buys the books and emails it to them. This is alongside their work on WP:CCI, a content-oriented process that helps keep copyright at bay. Alongside this, their work manning multiple email queues at the WMF (some of which like talk-to-wmfwikimedia.org are explicitly community oriented) and their work at WP:CCI, WP:SPI and stew already highlighted by the nominators put this into a "absolute yes" territory for me. -- Sohom (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

10. Squirrel – add me to the list of people who thought Rae was an admin on here. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 04:24, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
11. Support with the greatest of enthusiasm! Rae is incredibly skilled and it has been an absolute pleasure working with them in copyright and at SPI. I am so excited for them to finally be given the mop! 🐿️🐿️🐿️ MCE89 (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
12. Support. 🐿️ ScalarFactor (talk) 04:34, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
13. Support — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:34, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
14. Rae’s SPI work is consistently diligent and methodical, as is their cross-wiki administrative activity. Furthermore, they are an amazing colleague to work with: without question, one of the kindest, most thoughtful individuals I’ve met in the community. Our movement is tremendously lucky to have them, and I know they will be one of our finest administrators. Staraction (talk · contribs) 04:46, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
15. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:56, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
16. I know of more than a dozen admins, myself included, who wish they'd gotten the chance to sign their names above the "Questions for the candidate" header, and it's not hard to see why that is: Rae is effortlessly, annoyingly competent at basically everything they ever put their mind to. Seriously, it's nuts. (sorry.) I taught them how to do DYK promotions a while back; in basically no time at all, they had figured out and mastered all of the procedural quirks, learned to spot every article and hook deficiency in the nominations I threw at them, and even spotted a couple mistakes I hadn't. And then, grumble grumble, they decided they'd rather not do DYK and instead squirrel around to other areas of the project where they could be helpful. (sorry.) Very few people put DYK skills in their kit as fast as Rae did; even fewer doe that, buck that calling, and scurry away, but that's just the kind of talent Rae is. (really sorry.)
    Lots of Wikipedians are smart, competent, diligent, self-aware, and polite, and that is more than enough for adminship; it should be no big deal, after all, or at least much less of one than it currently is. But Rae has squirreled away all of those qualities in droves. (yeah, sorry.) They are not just the endlessly adaptable and prolific editor who can do so much good work the project needs done; they are not just the endlessly empathetic editor who looks out for others at every turn; and they are not just the bright-eyed and bushy-tailed editor who can bring their diligence to everything from DYK to SPI to copyright to steward work to content work and beyond. They are all of those things at once. Consider this a-corny and very strong support for the latest in this year's flight of squirrels, and for someone I am lucky to call a friend. (okay, okay, I'm done.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:05, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
17. 🐿️ nil ^nz 05:06, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
18. I, for one, welcome our new squirrel overlords. Rusalkii (talk) 05:08, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
19. (t · c) buIdhe 05:20, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
20. Absolutely! CoconutOctopus talk 05:27, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
21. No issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
22. Support unequivocally. As established in the nomination and Q1-3, Rae is a highly trusted editor with a clear need for the tools. They are also a colleague of mine on the Movement Communications team at the Foundation, and my extensive interactions with them in that capacity reinforce my view. 🐿️ Sdkb ^talk 05:36, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
23. Support; gladly! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:36, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
24. yes!! taavi (talk!) 05:40, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
25. 1brianm7 (talk) 05:43, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
26. InfernoHues (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
27. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
28. It's been a long time coming! Rae has become one of the most integral contributors in the Wikimedia movement, and I'm grateful to have had regular interactions with them over the years. It's kind of funny to look back on it now: it took 4 tries for the candidate to request rollback successfully back in 2016 , and now that they have been a steward since 2022, we technically already trust Rae with technical access to every user right under the sun. I am deeply appreciative of Rae's unwavering dedication to the broader movement across more than a decade of contributions to multiple projects, even in the face of adversity. Like the nominators, I am super excited that recently they have been willing to volunteer their experience on this project in more responsibilities, such as in writing quality content, in responding to possible copyright violations, in conducting sockpuppet investigations, and now in becoming an administrator. I have a feeling that Rae will be one of our best administrators. Mz7 (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
29. Will be able to use the tools in areas they already work on. I trust them to know their areas of competency, and in that vein wish them the best of luck transitioning from reporting to actioning. CMD (talk) 06:33, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
30. Support Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:37, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
31. Support tremendous experience, writes good content, what else do we need? In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 07:26, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
32. Squirrel: How dare my watchlist hide this from me for almost four hours. YuniToumei (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
33. Support I trust the judgment of the nominators. Deb (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
34. Support. Vermont is highly qualified and has extensive antiabuse experience here on enwiki and as a steward. Being an admin would only make them more effective in that work. Toadspike [Talk] 07:59, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
35. Support: +1 In solidarity, KuyaMoHirowo (talk • contribs) 08:22, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
36. Support, absolutely has my trust. Graham87 (talk) 09:04, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
37. Per pretty much everyone above. JavaHurricane 09:13, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
38. Support, clearly a stellar candidate. Chocmilk03 (talk) 09:15, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
39. Very helpful in their WMF capacity as part of Wikipedia:Resource support pilot. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:35, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
40. Support. Thank you for volunteering for the tools! Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
41. Support. Why not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
42. Support They deserve a squirrel-sized mop. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
43. Look, I know the "I can't believe they weren't already an admin" line is oft repeated in these discussions. But I really can't believe they weren't already an admin. Happy to support. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:41, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
44. Support. No issues. Rzuwig^► 11:42, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
45. Support. I don't think I've interacted with you myself, but I see a few people on this list whose opinions I trust very much. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 11:48, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
46. Support also haven't interacted with myself but they seem to have a squeaky clean track record of good judgement from what I've seen. 🐿️ all the way. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 12:01, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
47. Why not. 🐿️ EPIC (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
48. Yes, emphatically. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 12:44, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
49. Support: Only🐿️person🐿️who🐿️loves🐿️squirrels🐿️more🐿️than🐿️I🐿️do.🐿️🐿️🐿️🐿️🐿️ Hey man im josh (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
50. Support: Some good content creation and lots of good administrative work. Also per Sohom. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 12:54, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
51. Support Rolluik (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
52. Support without even a heartbeat's hesitation. Cabayi (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
53. Support NicheSports (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
54. Support 🐿️ Skarmory (talk • contribs) 13:08, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
55. Ternera (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
56. Despite theleekycauldron's appalling series of...jokes(?), i support this nomination ~ Lindsay^Hello 13:23, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
57. Support I have never interacted with this user besides requesting a book at WP:RESUP last year, but I think that they'd be okay with the tools. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
58. Support - 🐿️LOL, the candidate was one person who I actually thought was an admin until they told me in person that they weren't, and were "just" a steward.🐿️ But in seriousness, I've seen the candidate around, and have interacted with them in various places like WP:RESUP and WP:DYK. I've seen their other work around other administrative areas of enwiki, like SPI, as well. They will make a good admin. Epicgenius (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
59. Support ^MetalBreaks_AndBends (One for all) 13:44, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
60. Support Zzz plant (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
61. Support. Without hesitation. Loopy30 (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
62. Support -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
63. —Ingenuity (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
64. Support - Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 14:12, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
65. Support for similar reasons to everybody else. Mesocyclonic93 ^(t)_(c) 14:40, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
66. Support. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 14:42, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
67. Support - Always been impressed with Vermont's work at the Simple English Wikipedia so can say I have no worries about handing them the tools here as well. CountryANDWestern (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
68. Support No doubts as a fellow copyright clerk. Tenshi! (Talk page) 14:57, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
69. Verm has been an admin all but in name for the last few years; time to make it official. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 14:59, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
70. Hello, fellow squirrel! Support; I've been waiting for this. Rae has always struck me as an incredibly kind, knowledgeable, and humble member of our community — they'll do great. —⁠TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
71. Always impressed by Rae wherever we’ve crossed paths. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
72. Support will be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:04, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
73. Of course. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 15:12, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
74. Support. No problems here! Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:24, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
75. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:01, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
76. 🐿️ --VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 16:16, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
77. Support - DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
78. Support - excellent editor who I think will be a fantastic admin. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
79. Support the user with the mop, though uncertain about the entire state of Vermont having mop materials. Conyo14 (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
80. Support -- way overdue! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:54, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
81. Support. The current oppose vote cites "minimal content creation," but I see more than that, and enjoyed the short articles on Wrath Month and the Squirrel Census. Travellers & Tinkers (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
82. Support --Yodin^T 17:43, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
83. Support. Active, experienced, knowledgeable and open to feedback. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
84. Support: Admin will be very useful for you, especially with your SPI work. --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 17:55, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
85. Support, based in part on Simple English admin work. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
86. Support stwalkerster (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
87. 🐿️: steward work is amazing and I completely trust Rae with the bit. Always good to see an SPI clerk become an admin too. – LuniZunie_(talk) 18:32, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
88. Support it is one of the best states. Please laugh. In all seriousness, this is a very good resumé. It comes from a user that makes you think they're an admin already. CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 18:39, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
89. Support - not happy with the answer to Q5 re:Ritchie, but overall no major concerns. GiantSnowman 18:43, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
90. I think I offered to nom about a dozen times. I am glad to see Rae here --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:44, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
91. Support. Can be trusted with the bird feeder. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 19:15, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

    On the topic of bird feeders, did you know that birds can't taste chilli and squirrels can? In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:44, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

92. Support. No issue with lack of content per se; good evidence of them properly applying rules and policy in a competent way. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
93. Support enthusiastically - already has a great resume, solid understanding of policy, happy to see them running! (and another addition to the squirrel cabal 🐿️). ASUKITE 19:46, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
94. Support with no issues here. Will be a net positive to the project. Let'srun (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
95. Support tobie ^(t)(rw) 20:28, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
96. Support — Rae is a kind, diligent squirrel who has been an incredible member of the Wikimedia community and who will make an excellent addition to the enwiki admin corps. They have my full trust and strong support. 🐿️🐿️🐿️ GoldRomean (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
97. Support - whilst I am mostly involved in the article space over project space so don't interact with other users a lot (even of the my fellow support voters!), I do occasionally lurk DYK and what I saw there previously was very encouraging! DimensionalFusion (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
98. Support. Excellent work in sockpuppet investigations. Adminship would let Vermont address cross-wiki abuse on the English Wikipedia more effectively. — Newslinger talk 21:02, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
99. Oh yeah of course. dbeef [talk] 21:07, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
100. Support enthusiastically. Vermont is known to me as experienced, efficient, and a good communicator, and I'm pleased to see them requesting the mop. Arcticocean ■ 21:16, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
101. Support --Rand Freeman (talk ⬩ in solidarity) 21:21, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
102. Support, gladly. -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:23, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
103. Support FaviFake (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
104. Support — insert cliche comment about how I thought Vermont/Rae was an admin already here. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 21:37, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
105. Support – wow, another squirrel who I thought was already an admin! —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 21:43, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
106. Support very experienced editor! good luck! Robloxguest3 (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
107. Support – Yue🌙 (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
108. Support: Anyone who can come out of the SPI world looking this good should probably be handed a mop by default. Best of luck, ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
109. Support It took you long enough. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
110. Support Will be great! DanCherek (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
111. Squirrel! Complete net positive! EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:02, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
112. Support. Very well-qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
113. Support---squirrel! no concerns about--SQUIRREL! no concerns about 🐿️. ミラP@Miraclepine 23:15, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
114. Support No concern at all. Trusted community member. -- ferret (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
115. Support They're well-qualified 🐿️ Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 23:31, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Seemed very keen to want to throw me off Wikipedia a few years back. () Combined with minimal content creation, this means I cannot trust them with the tools. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:40, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

   @Vermont: Can you speak to this incident? It does seem rather aggressive. BD2412 T 17:06, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

   @BD2412, Vermont did speak to this in Q5. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

   @Barkeep49: Noted. My query is satisfied. It is unfortunate that the setup of Wikipedia is such that generally good editors can find themselves this much at odds on matters. BD2412 T 17:15, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

   I have to be honest, I would have struck this oppose had the response here been something like, "I apologise for upsetting you by my unsolicited posts on your talk page. I can assure you that is something I would never do to any user ever again." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:01, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

   Ritchie, I know this was a really painful incident for you. Would it not be better to step back here rather than doubling down? It's out of character for you to suggest that 2 solid GAs is insufficient for an RfA. Have you never nominated anyone with 2 GAs and more DYKs? Your own essay seems on why admins should create content (specifically, the note) seems to suggest we shouldn't be overly strict in demanding content. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 19:25, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

   I've ran the numbers and, these past 12 months, we've had 4 admins pass without any GAs, and 4 others with "only" one or two GAs – which is already a massive accomplishment for the average user, don't get me wrong!

   While we did have some outliers in the other direction, GA count certainly hasn't been a roadblock for our newer admins, and none of them strike me as having had poor judgement in any way because of this. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 19:54, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

2. Oppose per answer to Q2 "Most of my best contributions are outside of content". I think it is important for admins to be content-focused rather than enforcement-focused. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
3. Oppose Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:48, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

General comments

• AfD record: 89.2% match rate, n of 150, with 21 keep !votes, 102 deletes, 13 other, and 14 with no discernible vote. Subjective comment: Immediately their high count of delete !votes stands out, however this is at least mostly due to their high quantity of nominations, ~40. After looking through some of their votes, they typically include a detailed rationale with their !vote, explaining why current sourcing is/is not enough and citing policy, rather than simply !vote stacking. This is especially evident in their more recent !votes. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 12:32, 30 September 2026 (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 RfA 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.