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	169	9	2	95	Open	03:52, 7 October 2026	4 days, 22 hours	no	report

The current time is 05:31, 2 October 2026 (UTC). —

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Vermont	169	9	2	95	Open	03:52, 7 October 2026	4 days, 22 hours	no	report

The current time is 05:31, 2 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 05:31:07, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

---

if nominations have not updated.

---

Vermont

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (169/9/2); 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)

Optional questions from Dafootballguy

6. If you were to come across a situation like the one with Ritchie, what would you do diffently

A: In 2019, I was a young editor who'd been around three and a bit years – that's now ten and a bit, and I'm no longer as young. I've learned a lot in the past seven years of doing admin and steward work, and there's a difference in the way I respond to this kind of conflict.

The conflict between Ritchie and Prax was a big deal at the time – over 30 editors participated in the talk page thread – and I felt that untrue things were being said. I thought I could provide helpful replies to correct the record on behalf of a non-admin in conflict with a popular administrator. In retrospect, I could have said my piece and moved on.

Since then, I have gotten a lot better at finding a constructive role for myself in disputes, especially as a steward. There's weight to my words as a steward, and I bear in mind that people should be able to participate in discussions and feel like they can disagree with me. Stewards and administrators should be able to take criticism in stride. Every year since my election as a steward in 2022, I've stepped in front of the global community for a 20-day discussion of my actions: 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026. I have similarly worked to promote accountability among my colleagues, including voting to remove a fellow steward in 2024 after concerns over their conduct, including on English Wikipedia. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 03:53, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

7. If you were given the mop, what would you use it for?

A:

Optional questions from TParis

8. Follow up to BusterD's question about Ritchie333's oppose. That was 7 years ago, have you learned anything? Would you do it different? Do you stand by your behavior there?

A: I was reluctant to give more detail in Q5 to avoid rehashing Ritchie333's IBAN and subsequent appeals. I think I've answered the rest in Q6, and if I haven't please ask a follow-up. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 03:53, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Optional questions from Chattenoir

9: Some have questioned whether you have enough recent mainspace contributions to make a well rounded admin. What would you say to that?

A:

10: Would you say you have a good knowledge of the guidelines and editing standards across topic areas?

A:

Optional question from Chaotic Enby

11. Besides squirrels, what's your favorite rodent or mammal?

A:

Optional questions from Salmon of Knowledge

12. Administrators differ in how they choose to handle certain situations; for instance, one may be more curt than another when dealing with a user they personally dislike. In general terms, what style would you commit to act in if your RfA were passed?

A:

13. Suppose in the future that you were certain to change for the worse. In exact terms, until what extent in that progression would you, in your present state of mind, choose to proactively abdicate your presumed administrator role?

A:

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)

   I've been getting a feeling over the years that the idea that admins should demonstrate familiarity with the content creation process has been slowly but inexorably progressing into admins being required to like writing content. When standards raise into admins having to continue to have content creation be a large proportion of their work even after they get adminship, you realize that's what you're starting to imply, right?

   I'm not saying I have any idea what Rae's opinion on writing content is, but this is a general issue. There are so many other things to do on this website, and content creation is explicitly the one thing that adminship is not directly related to. A lot of (prospective) admins like doing those other things more. So what is the point of making them continue to do the thing they don't want to do? Wouldn't it be better if they could spend more time on what they enjoy and are good at? For all of us?

   Also, it was seven years ago guys. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 02:38, 2 October 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)

    I am unpersuaded by the opposes. While I'd like to see some content, even a single DyK-quality article passes the bar: that's enough, along with review work, to ensure that a candidate understands the article creation process. Vermont has multiple GAs. And if a single seven year old argument is the worst we have to say about this candidates temperament, may all our admins be so. Rusalkii (talk) 16:04, 1 October 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)
116. They're a great admin on Simple English Wikipedia and they'll be a great admin here too. I don't find the oppose rationales particularly convincing. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 00:19, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
117. Support It makes sense for Vermont to have right tools on English Wikipedia to support their good work related to investigations. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
118. Support Ryan shell (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
119. Support. NRP (talk) 01:04, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
120. Support As a great steward and SEW admin, this is a no-brainer. MakaylaHippo1998 (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
121. Stephen 01:13, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
122. Legoktm (talk) 01:22, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
123. Support (I thought they were already an admin, actually) — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 01:29, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
124. Support Definitely can be trusted with the tools. 🐿️ Aude (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
125. Support Trustworthy candidate who will benefit the project with the tools. Although I would prefer slightly more content work, they have more than sufficient enough experience in my opinion. Spencer^T•C 01:47, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
126. Support, trusted and competent editor. Sam Kuru (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
127. Support. The high level of trust asked and required of stewards is reflected in the support from exemplary admins and non-admins alike. When that is attained and retained, all other concerns fall by the wayside. Not every admin can become a steward, but every steward should be. Daniel Case (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
128. Support --椿 (talk🎀) 03:24, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
129. Support per answer to Q2. I think we should have administrators who like to do admin tasks. Without them, the project crashes and there won’t be articles. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:41, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
130. Support ShadowBallX (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
131. Support Soni (talk) 04:49, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

132. 🐿️ Squirrel. I could not be more excited about Vermont's candidacy. I've spent a great deal of time interacting with Rae on- and off-wiki, and I have always been thoroughly impressed with the sensitivity, tact, and conviction they bring to the project. Their work at SPI is among the finest—elegant behavioral analysis combined with an excellent gut instinct. Their content on topics as whimsical as Squirrel Census and as technical as the Frisch–Waugh–Lovell theorem are sublime. I often call the copyright editors, such as Rae, the heroes of Wikipedia. The soul-crushing work they do as a copyright clerk is essential to prevent lawsuits suing Wikipedia out of existence.

     But, despite quite the fierce competition, it's Rae's character that is far and away the strongest reason to support them for the mop. You can pursue their talk page for what I mean. I could not ask for an admin more willing to stick their neck out for minorities. I could not ask for a more diplomatic admin. I could not ask for a more caring admin. And I could not ask for an admin whose soul is as kind as theirs. Rae, you are an absolute treasure, standing in a league of your own. I cannot wait to wield a mop alongside you. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • edits • he/they) 04:53, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
133. Support - this goes without saying. Already an experienced steward with sysop tools on multiple projects, so why not? Jianhui67 ^T★C 05:59, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
134. Oh, Rae is a steward (I knew that), but not an admin? We should fix that. Schwede66 06:01, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
135. Support - I've seen them work on simplewiki and I must say that they are good to go!! (Nwa Mbata) (talk) 07:29, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
136. Support Thanks Vermont for writing Pumpkin Spice Spam. I regard their block log as effectively clean - an 8 year old block for edit warring indicates to me a lesson learned long ago. ϢereSpielChequers 08:54, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
137. Support without question, highly trusted in other projects and a good record with no significant problems in this one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
138. Support. Clearly a trusted user as a steward, SPI clerk, and an admin at Simple English, and a decent content contributor. I read and considered the opposes, but I wasn't convinced by the patchy evidence. Admins don't need to be perfect. Fences&Windows 12:03, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
139. Support. — 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:10, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
140. Support: Vermont would clearly be an asset with the mop based on their current contributions, but I think their work in the mainspace shows a familiarity on article work that's important to working with everyday volunteers on the site and it's heartening to see. Happy to support! Nomader (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
141. Support. The candidate has a long track record of cluefulness in areas that require significant technical skill and trust, and they have a clearly articulated use case for what they would do with the tools. I don't find the current opposes convincing; in particular, the idea that two GAs is somehow "insufficient content creation" seems like a completely excessive threshold. As for the John Suiter AFD, their read of NPOL may not have been the majority interpretation of the guideline, but they made a reasonable case for their interpretation all the same. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:53, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
142. No objections here. Codename Noreste /// ⭐️✨ 14:01, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
143. Support the nominations are persuasive, and the opposition is unpersuasive, though I can understand where Ritchie is coming from. I've never believed that admins need to be extraordinary content creators - there's a lot more to editing than writing articles. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
144. Support The4lines |||| (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
145. Support Content creation is about at the bare minimum that I'd say is acceptable, but there doesn't seem to be anything immediately disqualifying, and being "enforcement focused" is still useful when there is constant vandalism everywhere. I like to write articles and not deal with vandals, so people have different specialties that can complement one another. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
146. Support Vermont seems to be a well-intentioned user and a great fit for the tools. Regarding the opposes, we can never expect anyone to be perfect. I do believe that the rationales given by the opposers outweighs the benefits that this user would bring. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:43, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
147. Support - seems legit pattersonuwu ^njz (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
148. Support Rae is a tireless Wikipedian, and has been very dedicated not only to the movement, but to EnWiki. I've watched them work long hours at SPI and learn new queues and processes (like DYK) with patience and enthusiasm. Rae brings significant global experience and connections as a steward, and has a very solid handle on the buttons. Having Rae on-board would be a great boon for EnWiki. I have known Rae personally for years and can attest that they are kind, caring, do not rush into judgement, work well with others, and really like squirrels. As for Ritchie's oppose, I surely hope we're not holding 7 year old comments against people, considering that Rae has, in the intervening time, shown considerable maturity and professionalism. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:01, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
149. Support. Seems sensible, committed, level-headed. Articulate communicator. Trusted already in different roles. The opposes are unpersuasive: a) Content work may not be what they are most proud of, but it (2 GAs, 2 other nontrivial articles w/major authorship role) is adequate to have a first-hand understanding of what it's about. b) Involvement in a bit of drama 7 years ago is neither here nor there, unless they were being patently unreasonable, and it doesn't seem they were; that someone else remembers it years later as keen to want to throw (them) off Wikipedia is unfortunate but doesn't seem to pass the smell test. Martinp (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
150. Enthusiastic support. Very clueful, will wield the mop responsibly. --bonadea contributions talk 19:09, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
151. Support I've seen their work, they're a trusted member of the community, and I am very excited to see what else they'll do in the future. Dr vulpes (Talk) 19:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
152. Support yay Fathoms Below (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
153. Support Another "You're not an admin already?" vote from me. I believe Vermont will do wonderful work as an admin. phuzion (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
154. Support, clearly someone more than competent enough to be granted access to the toolset and can use them to do good work for the project. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:39, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
155. Support, enthusiastically. The one thing I want to see in any admin candidate is that they have a deep understanding of, and care for, the project. Quality content contributions are one way to show that; sustained, careful and judicious efforts to protect it are another. Vermont provides us with ample evidence of both. --Blablubbs (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
156. Support. The opposes are, to be polite, unconvincing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

     In fact, I'll go farther and say that Ritchie's vote appears to be retaliation on a personal level because Vermont criticized him in a discussion over a block that I made. Why is Vermont catching strays here over an action that I took? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

157. Support. I trust this candidate to stay away from the bird feeders be an excellent administrator. I've seen them around for a long time, and always had a good impression of their work here. What I didn't know about until reading this RfA is their work as a Steward, but that's all to the positive. The GA work is plenty to satisfy me in terms of understanding content, and all of the SPI and other moppish experiences bode well for adminship. About Ritchie's oppose, I consider Ritchie a friend and respect him a lot, and I'm sorry that this still hurts him, but I don't see anything disqualifying here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
158. 🐿️ 🐿️ (🐿️) 22:45, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
159. Support for a well-qualified candidate. Opposes not a concern. In solidarity, Miniapolis 23:26, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
160. Support Excellent candidate. Parabolist (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
161. Support. I'm unconvinced by the opposing arguments about Ritchie333, the amount of content creation, and the John Suiter AFD. Adumbrativus (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
162. Support, of course. I first properly met Rae about a year ago, when she popped into a Discord voice chat with a curt "asilvering? Can we talk in the other channel." I had just no-warning sock-blocked an editor with some 250k edits, so I have to admit my reaction was something like, Oh shit, I am in so much trouble. Unfortunately for Rae and the other steward who then had to spend the next hour cleaning up many thousands of cross-wiki edits, but very fortunately for me, my block was sound. Since then the two of us have collaborated on many similar investigations, spanning everything from quick cross-wiki spam issues to highly involved cases involving long-term harassment and stealth pov-pushing. I don't think the Most of my best contributions are outside of content from Q2 is in any way an expression that Rae does not care about content; rather, it's an expression of pride in that investigative work they've done. (In my own RFA, my answer to Q2 was "helping newbies", and no one thought that was insufficiently content-serious.) In addition, one can hardly say that Rae's deep-dive on whether LA Weekly is a reliable source or not is divorced from content - personally, when assessing candidates myself, I rate this kind of attention to WP:V and source integrity higher than I rate "has a GA", as it often demonstrates better understanding of policy than a GAN itself does. Rae is a gentleman and a squirrel; we are lucky to have her, and luckier still that we finally managed to poach her back here from simple-wiki. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
163. Per Barkeep's nomination. Daniel (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
164. Support per the opposes. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:44, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
165. Support. Best wishes. Volten001 ^☎ 02:47, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
166. 🐿️ Squirrelling for support. While I never personally interacted with you on-wiki, I think your experience as an admin on the Simple English Wikipedia and Meta-Wiki shows your experience. Oh, and that Squirrel Census DYK? Humorous! Congrats! Hason-LEK-SIN ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 03:36, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

     Also, looking at XTools, the user groups Vermont already has further assures me they'll be a great addition to the admins here. Hason-LEK-SIN ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 03:36, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

167. Support - we need more administrators like this. Bearian (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
168. Support If I had a nickle for every oppose made by those who think content ceation is the end-all be-all of admin work, I'd be a millionare. There is a reason adminship is nicknamed "the mop." You don't create with a mop, you clean. fanfanboy (block_talk) 04:37, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
169. Support Excellent editor who's already putting in the hard work with SPI and copyright. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:47, 2 October 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)

   "It's out of character for you to suggest that 2 solid GAs is insufficient for an RfA." But that is not what I said! Rather, that somebody working with GAs, DYKs, or just copyediting and adding sources, is likely to be somebody I get a positive impression of, which would have counteracted the only interactions I have ever had with Vermont, which have been strongly negative. That hasn't happened. Indeed, even now after reading the answers to questions I still get the impression that Vermont likes policing content more than producing it, and can't admit when they're wrong. Those are major red flags for me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:52, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

   Since this more-than-seven-year-old dispute predates many editors, including myself, I thought it might be helpful to assemble some context. Arbcom set an interaction ban between Ritchie and Prax in 2019, following, among other things, a rather long ANI thread the year prior. This came up most recently last year at arbcom, when Ritchie requested the IBAN between him and Prax be lifted. At that time, Prax wrote, What stands out most is the complete lack of apology or acknowledgment of the extensive harassment I endured, only justifications tied to personal hardships. But probably the most illuminating comment, for those without access to the arbcom email archives or first-hand memory of the dispute, is Katie's.

   Who is it that can't admit when they're wrong, here? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 20:23, 1 October 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)

   I must say I disagree here. Someone who primarily writes articles has far less use for the tools of adminship, and there's no point in giving it to them if they aren't going to use them. We want someone whose strongest contributions will be made even stronger by use of the mop, and that's exactly the case here. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 01:18, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

   The entire purpose of this project is to put forward high-quality content. If you just want to have a social media site with a hierarchy of authority in it, this is the wrong place. So an answer that, essentially, says that the candidate does not care about content tells me that their administrative choices will not be governed by the principle that the quality of the content is paramount. And to me that's a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:47, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

   I find this rationale very strange. The role of adminship has very little effect for the task of writing articles directly, as far as a non-admin like me can understand. In fact, the most prominent tool admins receive is the block button, a very non-content-oriënted function. So considering that the candidate has listed multiple articles they've written and had an interest in for their answer to Q2, what more do they need? Is there some arbitrary number of articles/GAs/DYKs/FAs Vermont must produce to be qualified for the admin tools? It seems very unfair to claim the candidate does not care about content when that is far from the truth. tobie ^(t)(rw) 05:09, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

   For what it’s worth, I think Rae’s track record does show care about content. It’s possible that one can look at one’s own wiki record and honestly say, “I make a bigger impact on the project through investigations than through writing GAs” without therefore being unconcerned about content. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

   Someone who primarily writes articles has the most use for the tools of adminship. These are the people whose strongest contributions will be made even stronger by use of the mop. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

   @Hawkeye7 What admin tools would an admin who primarily writes articles use? I write articles near exclusively and I cannot think of a single thing about being an admin that would help me do that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

   You should have put this is a question to Vermont to test if they really do have a clue! The biggest one is page moves. When I was an admin I used to do hundreds of these for people. Now I mostly need to move my own work (and that of others) from userspace to mainspace and around the mainspace without redirect. I am unable to delete pages that are in the way or perform certain moves. Template editing is an important part of what I do, and really requires admin access. I cannot protect pages. I cannot promote DYK queues. I have difficulty dealing with categories without admin access. Most frustrating of all is inability to add certain admin features to the bot API, which strikes at my professionalism. And I cannot read deleted text, which would be a great help in rebuilding articles deleted for copyvio. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:12, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

   @Hawkeye7 You can totally promote DYK queues, iirc. WP:DYKTPE GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 01:23, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

   Not totally. The currently active set and the top queue are subject to the Main Page cascading protection, so you still need to be an admin. The tool also requires you to be an admin, so you have to edit the queues by hand the old-fashioned way. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:54, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

   I put the question to you because I've put myself in the "never run for admin ever" category in large part because I think it would distract from content work for 0 benefit and I am simply confused why anyone would think it is most useful to content editors. You can just become a page mover or a template editor. Those are the least-admin required things in the admin toolbox.

   Bot features are not "content work". Dealing with copyvio is also not really "content work". Protecting pages is not content work. If it was I'd struggle to see how anti-vandalism isn't content work. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:14, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

3. Oppose Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:48, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

   Uh, do you have a reason why? NRP (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

   Not enough content creation. Tony Holkham (Talk) 06:24, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

   To explain, I was persuaded by Ritchie333's and David Eppstein's opposition and subsequent comments, added to which a block, however short or distant, is a deciding factor for me. I would also add that, yes, an oppose vote should have a reason and and I apologise for the initial bluntness (but what was with the "Uh", I wonder?). A final comment is that I dislike the way oppose voters are interrogated even when their reasons are usually clear, and is probably why most RfA applications are largely unopposed. Tony Holkham (Talk) 07:39, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

   I'm not interrogating you. But an oppose without any rationale is confusing to say the least. NRP (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

   You also voted without a rationale, and I'm not convinced that a vote warrants more scrutiny or badgering just because it's an unpopular opinion as opposed to the "safe" option. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

   Well, imagine if at the ballot for an election in real life someone asked you why you voted that way. You don't have to tell them.

   Also, Thebiguglyalien is right, you didn't give a reason either. Chattenoir (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

4. Oppose Per the above. Not enough content creation to give me a comfort factor. The episode with Ritchie also raises a bit of a red flag: I'm not sure they should have got involved and made a bad situation worse. It was none of their business and they should have avoided the kerfuffle to let tempers die down, not act in a manner that stokes them up. - SchroCat (talk) 08:12, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
5. Oppose. After reading the above, not being able to admit culpability is a reasonable reason to oppose. Halbared (talk) 08:52, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
6. Oppose – I am very confused by Vermont's vote at this AfD, where they argued that the biography of a sitting state legislator should be deleted despite admitting that WP:NPOL was met, which goes against well-established precedent & consensus (2021 unanimous keep AfD, 2021 speedy keep AfD, 2022 SNOW AfD, 2023 SNOW AfD). aesurias (she/her) (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

   They explained their reasoning clearly - WP:NPOL is presumed notability, and there may be exceptions. WP:IAR is a core principle - we're not bureaucrats here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

7. Oppose It is my opinion that an admin should have extensive experience as a mainspace editor. Why? Because an intimate knowledge of editing, having done it yourself, is an important knowledge set for an admin, and to be able to understand and emphasize with editors because you are one too. It is like if someone has been a police officer all their life but somehow is not and has never been a citizen, the analogy doesn't work at all lol, but the point is you need to have been on the receiving end of authority to understand the responsibility that comes with wielding it. As an early editor I once made a copyright violation due to copy and pasting some content, my entire edit was removed including other stuff and it was upsetting for me because I had lost that progress, the admin who did it was very understanding and provided me with the help I needed at restoring the lost content; I do not know if I could expect that from someone who has done too little editing to emphasize with this kind of situation, that is not to say that I know that they can't, I don't, and for all I know they could make a great admin, but I think having mainspace contributions provides you with the experience to emphasize in this manner, which this candidate lacks to my understanding. From an ethos point of view, Admins should be, or at least should have been at some point, mainspace editors. Chattenoir (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

   Is two GAs, and numerous DYKs, not mainspace work? CoconutOctopus talk 20:16, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

   I admit fault here, I didn't extensively check Vermont's edit history and should have taken comments above with more salt. I underestimated their mainspace contributions.

   However, after having checked all of the articles listed on their user page, many of them involve less than +5,000 characters, and almost all are pre-2020. I think that's quite a long time to make so few mainspace contributions. The only recent mainspace contribution of note I can see is Squirrel Census.

   The argument I raised is far less relevant than I presented it as being, but it is still relevant enough. Vermont has 16,000 edits, there are many editors with over 100,000 who also have experience with admin-esque activities such as investigations, ANI, et cetera. I am still not convinced they have enough experience as we should be expecting editor's to have. Chattenoir (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

   16,000 edits is well into the accepted range at RfA; and that's not counting the obvious very useful experience they have as an admin on Simple Wikipedia and as a Steward. I can think of many editors with >100,000 edits who would be terrible as administrators; and I can think of many with less than 5,000 who I know will make excellent admins and I personally would trust right now. CoconutOctopus talk 21:21, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

   I totally agree, if what I wrote sounded like I was saying someone with more edits is always a better choice for admin that is not what I intended. I think generally however the more edits and the longer someone has been an editor the greater the confidence can be put on their behaviour and their experience. Chattenoir (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

   Just to clarify: 16,000 edits over a decade is more experience than what several recent successful RfA candidates have had (some of whom have been here for only two or three years). I do acknowledge your comment regarding content creation, so I'll leave it at that, but wanted to clarify that point. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

   The candidate explicitly stated their mainspace works in their answer to Q2. tobie ^(t)(rw) 20:47, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

8. Oppose Parking here for now. May change my mind given answer to #8. We'll see, but the answer to #5 leaves me wanting more. But I feel strongly enough to park here for now incase I don't return before this RFA is over.--v/r - TP 22:56, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
9. Oppose Per the vast majority of opposes so far. Concerned about lack of content creation and the response to question 5, and not impressed by the badgering of opposes so far.Intothatdarkness 23:12, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

   I don't think it's fair to blame an RfA candidate for what other editors say in the oppose section. I'm not going to comment on your valid oppose rationales. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:42, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

   Vast majority? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I have great respect for Rae and I came here minded to support, but the debacle with Ritchie concerns me. So does the answer to Q5, which basically boils down to "Ritchie's feelings are valid". They are, but acknowledging such is not enough in my book. I don't expect RfA candidates to be perfect, but I do expect them to admit when they were wrong, and my reading of the answer to Q5 is that it falls short of WP:ADMINACCT standards. I'm going neutral instead of opposing because a) the events were more than six years ago, and b) I have yet to see evidence that this is a pattern of behavior on Rae's part – indeed, that they are trusted enough to be a steward and a Wikimedia Discord moderator is evidence to the contrary. Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 19:19, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

   I see this succinct answer as a kindness myself and a show of tact. RfA is quite a visible and sometimes hostile place, and dragging up a 7-year old conflict is not going to benefit the people involved. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:25, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

2. This is my first time wading into RfA, so I've made a point to get down into the weeds as much as I possibly can. Firstly, an admin that is thorough in determinations at AfD is extremely important to me. After a thorough review of their recent AfD votes, I've found Rae broadly participates in these discussions intelligently and in good faith, even if they typically air to the side of exclusion against my better instincts. Though occasionally I felt they could have gone further in their investigation, I won't hold them to an extreme standard when I suspect those who tend towards deletion would say the same about me (from the opposite direction). However, I'm still somewhat concerned by their relative disinterest in the mainspace, which I think can serve to uphold the bureaucracy even if it's not their intention.

That leaves us to consider the more important aspect of adminship, enforcement. Given recent experiences I've had here, I'm extremely nervous to greenlight someone who's come under fire for sticking to the letter of the law. I want this to be a welcoming place for new editors; I think we fail to do that if we shove Duty to Comply in their face when they come into controversy, without proper respect for the nuance of the situation. I appreciate Rae's answers thus far in this regard, particularly their assertion that stewards and administrators should be able to take criticism in stride. Nevertheless, in the heat of discussion, editors may be reactive, or persistent past the point of patience for many admins. I feel strongly that we need to be able to handle that in a manner which preserves the discussion space as a friendly environment without punishing individuals for taking the bait, or allowing minor transgressions to serve as the determinant factor in decision-making. I'll be posting a question soon that I hope will help answer this question. Right now I remain on the fence, without any ill-will towards the nominee, and with great respect for their work at SPI.

All the best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 05:30, 2 October 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)

---

• (Putting this here as it is not a reply to any specific comment.) One of the oppose comments says that other opposes are being badgered. Which, while I can see why they said that, isn't really the candidate's fault - the candidate themselves is not leaving the comments. It may, however, be helpful to move some of the less prurient discussions to the talk page. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
  • @Epicgenius: I don't think "prurient" is the word you are looking for here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:18, 2 October 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.