Chaotic Enby (talk·contribs) – RFA participants may be forgiven for thinking that Chaotic Enby is already an administrator: such is the breadth and depth of their contributions to Wikipedia. They have done robust content work, including producing threegood articles and a handful ofdid you know andin the news entries: my favorite is the delightfully namedSkeleton panda sea squirt. They have done careful and diligent maintenance work in areas as diverse ascleaning up LLM-generated contributions, patrollingnew pages, and implementingtechnical move requests. And they have a track record of innovative contributions to technical areas, including twinkle and the unblock wizard (more about that from L235 below). Chaotic Enby has shown themselves to be a thoughtful and considerate editor whose wide-ranging knowledge of policy is balanced by their humility. They would make a valuable addition to the admin corps, so I hope you join me in supporting them.Vanamonde93 (talk)03:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Co-nomination statement
I have been excited to nominate Chaotic Enby for quite some months now! Deeply talented, passionate, and dedicated, Chaotic Enby will make a fantastic Wikipedia administrator.
The thing I most admire about Chaotic Enby is that they have a unique knack for identifying where their blend of technical talent and deep project experience can be best applied to great effect on Wikipedia – and then making it happen. Vanamonde has mentioned several examples above, but the one I want to highlight in particular is theunblock wizard, which is a tool CE developed to guide blocked users in the unblock process all the way through to posting well-structured appeals. Having worked in the background with CE on the wizard as the intadmin posting the script on their behalf, the speed with which they went from thinking "hey, the unblock request process could probably be more user-friendly", to "I should consider writing a tool to fix that", to "I’ve got a prototype ready to go", to "it’slive now" was awe-inspiring at every stage. (Doubly so given that the unblock process’s UX problems are primarily experienced by blocked editors – not the folks usually clamoring for better tools!)
This was just one example of CE’s general disposition to notice problems and then address them, another example of which is, of course,WikiProject AI Cleanup, which CE played a huge role in founding. More broadly, CE is a great communicator (just scroll around their talk page archives), they’re unafraid to change their mind, and they’re very enjoyable to work with. I offer my highest recommendation for CE’s adminship.KevinL (akaL235·t·c)03:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. I have never edited for pay. My one previous account is disclosed on my userpage.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)17:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: Working on unblocks is certainly where admin tools would be the most helpful for me. I have regularly given advice to blocked users on what is expected of an unblock request and how to give reassurances to the reviewing administrators. Without the tools, I can only go so far, and, it could help to be able to unblock editors who have given credible reassurances or agreed tounblock conditions. Beyond that, I often encounter situations when working in AI cleanup and new page patrolling where the tools could have been beneficial, from processingG15 speedy deletions to comparing deleted versions of pages.In The News is also a venue I could readily help in, as blurbs often languish waiting for an administrator to action them.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am proud of my role in creating theWikiProject AI Cleanup, and of the part I played in shaping policy discussions about AI, fromwriting an AfC decline message tocontributing wording to the G15 deletion criterion. This also led me to familiarize myself with edit filters – of which I would like to highlightthe collaborative work onSpecial:AbuseFilter/1341. On the technical side of things, I put a lot of work into theUnblock wizard, which supplemented the work I and others have done to guide users in their requests. Besides that, I currently have three Good Articles on my roster. Between them, I have a soft spot forApex (dinosaur), which I can't wait to expand more once ongoing research gets published!
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Wikipedia does throw up stressful situations, but I usually try to detach myself from the more heated aspects of a dispute, by focusing on the specific policies at play, and often disengage from more sprawling conflicts. I once found myself in a delicate situation while mediating a dispute in theACAS topic area. Several editorsasked for advice on my talk page, and I helped them navigate a tough discussion while avoiding any further flare-ups. As one editor was topic-banned, I helped mediate an agreement between them through a voluntary pause in the discussion for the duration of that editor's ban, encouraging them to learn by editing other topics, and subsequently guided them around edge cases whileassuming good faith from my fellow editors.A case where I was more directly involved was a dispute aroundWikiProject Baronage of Scotland, which was being run from a user sandbox and involved some amount of off-wiki decision making around mass page moves. The situation culminated ina heated ANI thread, where I worked the editors through relevant policies and guidelines about WikiProjects, decision-making and copyright, while taking care to not engage myself in a spiral of conflict.
You may ask optional questions below. There is alimit oftwo 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.
4. Why are you choosing to run now, and not in elections in a month?
A: I am very happy that both methods are now available, as they provide different paths that can be more comfortable for different kinds of candidates. I myself prefer the shorter process of a regular RfA, and also appreciate it providing more direct and in-depth feedback from which I can learn, and which I welcome heartily.
5. I see you are quite involved in cleaning up AI so I wanted to ask what if any changes in policy on AI do you think would be beneficial?
A: Just like AI models themselves, the topic of AI policy is complicated and evolving. Generative AI has been a major issue for Wikipedia in the past two years, frompeacock writing andsubjective inferences tocompletely hallucinated sources, but I do not exclude a future in which, 5 or 10 years to now, we could see positive contributions from newer models, and we should keep in mind that policies are not intended to be static.To clarify, I am talking here aboutgenerative AI specifically. Other kinds of machine learning, such as the one used byClueBotNG for more than a decade, have been more than successful in helping users throughout the encyclopedia. Generative AI, however, has been more problematic, especially since the introduction of ChatGPT in late 2022. We have clear policies relating to image generation, and to use of language models in discussions, but similar policies regarding content generation are still lacking. Reports involving LLM issues are a daily occurrence, as, while they very often break existing guidelines, many users don't realize that, and I believe drawing a bright line regarding their use would be helpful in that regards.The question of how to enforce such a policy is trickier. On the one hand, we already have policies about undisclosed paid editing or sockpuppetry that don't come with detection mechanisms baked inside the policy. On the other hand, some stylistic AI tells are also used by human editors, and it would be unjust to block them based on these alone. While it focuses only on unreviewed outputs, the language ofG15 strikes a nice balance in my opinion. Broader policies should be considered, but the questions of policy and enforcement, while distinct, can't be fully separated either.Ultimately, while I have many ideas on what to do with AI (and could talk for days about it!), it is important that our policies come from a consensus on what we want Wikipedia to be in the age of AI, and I am more than open to revising my ideas and proposals based on community feedback.
6. I really like your user page so I wanted to ask what inspired the design of your user page?
A: The background is inspired byart déco motifs with the colors of thenon-binary flag, to which I added a few more extras, such as the spinning water wheels on each side. As it doesn't work perfectly on all browsers, and might be difficult to parse forscreen readers, I also havea wikicode-only alternative in case it doesn't load correctly!
A: By way of background, thenorthern green anaconda article was created soon after the species was described, and I quickly expanded it from a near-stub to what eventually became my first Good Article. A few months afterwards, new studies were published that refuted the species description, both on nomenclatural and genetic grounds. After working on the article to provide a good description of the species' status (which becamequite heated at one point, but which I still took in my stride!), a discussion led to it being scheduled for a merge with the maingreen anaconda article, and procedurally demoted from its GA status.This first foray into GA-level writing taught me quite a few things! Investing yourself in an article about emerging science, and especially nominating it for GA, is always a risky task, as you can't really predict in which direction follow-up research will go. Incidentally, this is why I didn't nominateIchthyotitan for good article status. More generally, this experience taught me a lot about the GA process, and about article writing and researching in general. It was my first GA and the longest article I wrote. Finally, some of the material was moved into the main green anaconda article, so the effort still went somewhere!More generally, while it was certainly a definitely a difficult learning experience, it was still a learning experience above all, and I hope that my work might one day help push the green anaconda article to become a GA itself!
8. I've seen that you've done major content work, and I believe that you have definitely seen bias issues. How would you like to describe the bias issues that are currently in Wikipedia? Is there any way, you feel, to address such issues?
A: Wikipedia tries to follow a consensus of reliable sources. Focusing onverifiability, not just truth, means that we are sensitive to the biases of the sources we rely on, and, to a lesser extent, to the biases of editors assessing these sources. The worst method – with the exception of all others – has nonetheless worked surprisingly well, given the challenge of presenting varied perspectives in a single cohesive article.Attributing these perspectives is essential for this purpose, as it allows us to discuss a controversial topic without having to take sides. Conversely, when there is a clear consensus of sources, we can and shouldreport what they say as statements of fact, as attributing it to specific sources can give the impression that it is still contested.Importantly,NPOV isn't the same measure of neutrality by which external commentators are judging us. We can't necessarily expect that balancing out reliable sources will put us in the middle of a given country's political spectrum. This is especially true as we discuss issues that encompass areas of scholarly expertise, such as articles about evolutionary biology, which should notgive equal weight to creationism for a sense of political neutrality.I would say that Wikipedia still does have its blind spots. Systemic bias is absolutely present, from availability of sources to language barriers. Additionally, NPOV is not perfectly enforced everywhere: deliberate POV pushing very much exists, and, beyond that, it is a difficult task to assess sources while setting aside one's own biases. We're still a work in progress, but with projects likeWomen in Red or theDeveloping Countries WikiContest, I do hope that we can achieve a broader perspective.
9. Suppose you encounter an article/contribution/edit with tells of generative AI usage. When you ask the editor who made the content in question about this, they claim that they did not use AI to create it. Under what evidence provided by the editor would you deem it enough to rule out the usage of generative AI?
A: This question is very interesting as it contains a deeper question. Namely, to what extent it is relevant to ascertain that an edit was, or was not, generated by AI. My issue with the use of generative AI on Wikipedia is a systemic one – it allows editors to generate, at a large scale, content that goes against our policies and guidelines in sometimes subtle but dangerous ways.As such, determining if an edit was AI-generated is part of the more basic goal of identifying if the edit was policy-compliant If looking at a single edit that I suspect to be AI, without a broader pattern of AI-related issues by this user, then the question of whether it is truly AI or not becomes much less important. It is absolutely possible for an editor to use AI assistance in making a constructive contribution, such as to help with formatting (as a more advancedregex), or as a starting point in searching for sources (while being careful about systemic bias!) that are then human-reviewed. In that case, the ultimate origin of the content doesn't really matter.Conversely, many ofour AI "tells" are patterns that also happen to break our existing, non-AI-related policies and guidelines. For instance, if the edit contained manyweasel or peacock words, I would likely ask the editor to reword it in a more encyclopedic way, instead of worrying about who ultimately wrote it. With more severe issues such as made-up sources, I would revert the content and warn them about the situation. This is one of the cases where transparency about the use of AI can be helpful for the editor – many users unfamiliar with AI may not realize that it canhallucinate entire sources, and this situation can be presented as a learning experience for them.
10. As we, as a community, continue to define policies and guidelines surrounding the usage of generative AI, how we can minimize the risks of catching false positive cases of generative AI?
A: For now, the community has tried to carefully word policies such as G15 to limit themselves to the most blatant cases. As I discussed in my previous question, in more ambiguous cases, ascertaining whether an individual edit is AI-generated should be a lower priority than making sure that it is accurate and constructive. Even clear-cut signs likeUTM parameters (added by ChatGPT to indicate the provenance of its URLs) can come from it being used as a legitimate, if imperfect, first step to search for sources, rather than full-on text generation. Educating community members on what we consider acceptable or unacceptable uses of AI, and the different purposes of the various tools we have to catch them, is essential to minimize risks of false positives.AI "tells" are also evolving pretty quickly, and we have to evolve alongside them. Some like word choices can easilyreflect the language of workers outsourced to provide them feedback, often from theGlobal South. Because of that, we should be especially careful about not relying exclusively on these clues, as they may unwittingly widen systemic bias.
A: I have encountered paid editors while working inNPP andAfC, and helped some navigate block appeals (most often{{uw-spamublock}} cases). Beyond that, I haven't worked in UPE and am not familiar with the more specific practices, so I don't have a lot to say about it. I will watch and learn from more experienced folks if I ever want to work in this area one day.
A: I wrote this guide as a quick reference "dos and don'ts" for new users. As such, it obviously simplifies a lot, and doesn't go into the deeper nuances of some policies. To take a single example, I sayNon-independent sources (such as company websites or press releases) are highly discouraged., without going in the details of whatWP:ABOUTSELF allows – while more accurate, it would be too much for new users in a single sitting.I still broadly agree with the points I wrote there, although skimming the guide again, I would clarify some aspects better. For example, I talk about what sources you can or can't cite, but forget to mentionverifiability itself as a logical prerequisite. While it is in my userspace, the guide is open for other editors to contribute to (and somehave done so!), and I am very happy to hear any feedback on how to make it more accurate while still being accessible for newcomers.
Edit summary usage for Chaotic Enby can be foundhere.
Please keep discussion constructive andcivil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly reviewtheir contributions before commenting.
Numerated (#) "votes" in the "Support", "Oppose", and "Neutral" sections may only be placed by editors with anextended confirmed account. All other comments are welcome in the "general comments" section.
Now that the adrenaline has worn off, I'm back to add that Chaotic Enby has highly valuable technical skills, great dedication to the project, and unmatched compassion for their fellow editors. They are an excellent candidate.Toadspike[Talk]20:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Support: Well-tempered and clueful around the project with trusted nominators, surprised they weren't an admin already, a great fit for the role.Left guide (talk)17:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Finally. Chaotic Enby has my strongest possibleSupport, and has had it for quite some time. They are compassionate, patient, and clueful, and they have both the drive and the ability to push the whole movement forward. My only reservation, such as it is, is that CE becoming an admin would mean I'll be losing one of my favourite non-admin unblocks helpers. But I look forward to the changes CE will make - at a systematic, technical, and personal level - to make the encyclopedia a kinder, more thoughtful, and more inclusive space. --asilvering (talk)18:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Yessssss. Despite having in the past checked and been surprised they weren't a mop-wielder already, I wasstill confused when I saw they had an RfA. My few interactions with them have always been pleasant, and there's plenty more that I've seen from them that shows they are well deserving of the bit.Perryprog (talk)18:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
All my interactions with Chaotic Enby have been positive enough that I'm convinced they should get the mop. I can't be 100% certain they will fit the role, but I am confident they're the type of person we need as future admins.Soni (talk)18:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Support – absolutely thrilled to see this. I offered to nom them myself awhile back. Their hard work in helping my idea of theWikipedia:Unblock wizard come to life is something I'll be eternally grateful for and shows their dedication to admin work.Clovermoss🍀(talk)18:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I've seen this user's kindness and love for the community firsthand, in dealing with blocked (and unblock-seeking) users and as an experienced mentor in theDiscord. From AI cleanup to the Unblock Wizard, they consistently take the lead in fixing that which they find lacking in the project. Thus, Ienthusiastically support this nomination.Staraction (talk |contribs)18:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Support: I'm aware of at least 10 admins who wanted to nominate Chaotic Enby. I cannot say enough positive things about them as an individual, and I'm excited for their potential, which I don't believe has come close to being reached yet. Since knowing them over the last year and a half, I've been beyond impressed as their thirst for knowledge, their kindness, and their ability to take criticism and grow from it. While you may find the occasional mistake they've made, they're always eager to correct those and to make sure they don't make that mistake again. I don't look for people who never make mistakes, I look for people who absorb knowledge, make the occasional make mistake, and make great efforts to not make those mistakes again. They'll be an absolute asset as an administrator.Hey man im josh (talk)19:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Everyone above has said great things. I'll just add my own emphasis to something that L235 brought up, which is that people who are blocked are generally not the top of anyone's mind. It speaks volumes that it is that group whom CE has dedicated their energy to helping.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)19:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Well, this is a bit funny and silly: I totally forgot that I voted in this thing, and was about to ask the nominee if they ever considered running for RfA. Then, I remembered I voted in this thing ... deja vu, I guess.Steel1943 (talk)21:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Support they've contributed a lot of good to the project and though Q7 hasn't been answered as of writing I recall that being a moment that presented a great opportunity to learn and reference for future endeavours in the biology-space. --Reconrabbit19:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
EnthusiasticallySupport - also thought they already were an admin, and have been consistently impressed by their civility and clarity of thought when we have crossed paths. --LWGtalk20:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Support, I've had only positive interactions with them and they will make an excellent admin. Especially in a time where AI threats to Wikipedia are on the rise, their expertise and well reasoned decision making in that area is invaluable.🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs)20:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
WeakSupport, a very helpful person in various ways, especially in unblock requests. However, lacks the level of conviction and power that should be present in an admin.HSLover/DWF (talk)20:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Support A positive influence on the community and an overall great person to interact with. Honestly assumed they were an admin already. Best of luck for the nomination! Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)22:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Support as I find zero problems with this editor; astounded by their work in the tech area. Also, why is there such a spike in RFAs?HwyNerdMike(tokk)23:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Support, with the usual apologies in advance for whatever drama doing admin tasks might bring down upon the janitorial staff. Cheers!BD2412T23:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Finally! I'm so glad to see they've decided the time is right. Besides creatingWP:AIC they've continued to contribute to AI policy discussions with a deep understanding of the issues. They've got technical chops, have helped me out with assessing French-language sources and translations, and all my interactions with them have been friendly and constructive.ClaudineChionh(she/her ·talk ·email ·global)00:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
I've interacted with the candidate off-wiki and have only positive impressions of them. I don't think there are any pertinent issues that should prevent Chaotic Enby from getting the bit, to be honest. (Edited 22:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)) I forgot to mention that I also appreciate their ability to keep calm and maintain perspective, even during stressful situations. –Epicgenius (talk)01:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Support The times I have seen them around wiki they have always been polite and made good contributions and the wiki discussions I have read during the course of this RFA follow that experience. They also have answered all the questions(including mine) very well and so given all that and their experience in GA and AI cleanup I have no doubts they will be an excellent Admin.GothicGolem29(talk)01:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Support. I've had pleasant (non-chaotic) interactions with the candidate, and trust L235's vetting process (having undergone it myself). The nomination and question answers look good — the interface work on the unblock wizard is admirable!Sdkbtalk01:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Support I've seen this editor around a fair amount, and always noticed they have clue. Support based on that and the nominators and answers to questions.Trainsandotherthings (talk)01:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Support: Our paths have rarely crossed, but you impressed me with your novel solutionhere. You have a lot of wisdom and creativity—if you bring even just half of that as an admin, you'll do great. Best, ~Pbritti (talk)02:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Thoughtful, careful, helpful, clueful, knowledgeable, kind, should've run a long time ago. Thanks for volunteering!Perfect4th (talk)03:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Support easy support (was waiting for the day you RfA'd)! love the technical work, esp. on that unblock wizard and I hope that gets incorporated soon!❤HistoryTheorist❤06:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Support: Clear net positive, though I'm just wondering if the strength of some of my AN and ANI comments from last year eventually led to the idea of creating the Unblock wizard? Either way, I've not seen that innovative creation before and am looking forward to trying that out.🌻A♭m(Ring!)(Notes)06:48, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Chaotic Enby is someone who I assumed was already an admin, and can only see them doing great things with the tools.Phuzion (talk)11:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Support. I've seen CE at various places around the project and they've been consistently thoughtful and insightful. Their content and technical contributions are new discoveries for me but are also impressive. Overall, a great candidate for the mop.ModernDayTrilobite (talk •contribs)13:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Support. Glad I caught this RFA in time. I know they're very experienced with technical stuff, so that's good for me.Icepinner13:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Support -- seen around before, is chill, WikiProject AI Cleanup and having written an entire unblock wizard is definitely a great resume. More unblock helpers is always good.Mrfoogles (talk)18:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi ViridianPenguin! I know this comment is intended to be a compliment, and I respect it a lot, but I don't want it to be at the expense of Rjjiii. Having an ongoing RfA can be stressful for candidates regardless of the state of the discussion, and I don't think that comparing two different situations is helpful, even though I know you meant well.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)20:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Everything on their resume is really good (starting up a WikiProject dedicated to cleaning up AI is super-impressive on its own to me, and so is writing an Unblock Wizard), and I have had nothing but good interactions with Chaotic Enby myself! I trust they will make a good admin!!Monster Iestyn (talk)00:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Support with particular effusive praise for the brilliantWP:AGF-compliant,WP:ROPE-extending anti-AI tactic of starting off with a relatively benign warning aboutMOS:PEACOCK. And I also just learned about the candidate's awesome work developing that unblock script! What a well-qualified person! Yay, Chaotic Enby!Julietdeltalima(talk)01:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Have seen them around and have no problems with them, so I don't feel the need to ask any optional questions. I knew they weren't an admin, so my reaction to this RfA is "'Bout time!"Daniel Case (talk)02:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Support I've seen Chaotic Enby active in multiple RFCs making constructive contributions, esspecially in the area of AI. I has a hesitancy about handing the tools to them, despite believing them to be well qualified for the tools, as I was concerned about the potential for the use of tools to be overly broad in combating generative AI and catching users who may have AI tells in their writing but don't actually use AI. I'm very impressed with their thought out response to my questions on the matter, recognizing that this is not a black and white issue of detecting AI usage, in particular their last sentencewe should be especially careful about not relying exclusively on these clues, as they may unwittingly widen systemic bias. I think this is important for all of us to remember as we attempt to find agreement on how to handle generative AI on Wikipedia, because we need to be ready for those situations where it might not be clear whether AI was used and when the stakes and consequences are high. Chaotic Enby has my full confidence and trust to be an administrator.Gramix13 (talk)05:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Support - like so many others, I was shocked when I found out Chaotic Enby wasn't already an admin. In all of my interactions with them I've found them to be a passionate, highly skilled, and thoughtful editor. Very happy to add my support to the pile :)Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk |contribs)08:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm not particularly familiar with this candidate so I checked a random sample of their contributions. I found nothing of concern.—S MarshallT/C08:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Support I avoid participating in the RfA process because I JDLI, and I don't remember ever commenting on any in my 10 years here. I cannot avoid this one; CE is just too good for me to not be a part of this.3df (talk)08:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Support: Their contribution to various fields literally screamsAdministrators without tools tools to me. They are the example of how much admin-like and admin-arena contributions one can do without being one, let's give them the ability to do even more with being one!~/Bunnypranav:<ping>12:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Saw someone mention finding out about the unblock wizard from an active RfA and lo and behold As I mentioned when Bunnyp gave them theWP:AWOT:Yeah!!!! Moves fast, does not break things.Aaron Liu (talk)13:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Support, IRL commitments kept me from support this immediately, but better late than never! TLDR, don't have a single bad thing to say here. For what it's worth I've worked with CE on a fair bit of technical topics including with WMF folks about (then) upcoming product deployments and I'm convinced CE is underselling their technical expertise here. Their non-public contributions to the conversation on WMF's deployment of a trial of hCAPTCHA on English Wikipedia, Image Browsing and thoughts on Temporary Accounts helped shape WMF communication on the topics, helping them avoid/anticipate pitfalls and have helped volunteers like me pushback against (and/or champion for) product descisions and choices taken by the WMF (some of which might have legitimately avert confrontation between the WMF and the community). --Sohom (talk)13:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Support with hope that Wikipedia will have more resources to deal with LLM or AI generated material: I think encyclopaedias is a type of knowledge resource where human contributors and reviewers are essential. --Minoa(talk)22:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Support for the excellent work already put into AI/LLM cleanup on the project, and no doubt for what is likely to follow in the coming months.SmittenGalaxy|talk!01:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
obviously!! really, i'm ashamed to not be among the first to support. the opposition is woefully unconvincing....sawyer *any/all *talk11:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Support for many reasons, but most recently: very level-headed and elegant analysis of actual data regarding the LLM issue(s) at certain RfCs, etc.Hiobazard (talk/contribs)13:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Support. Having seen Chaotic Enby's excellent work inWikiProject AI Cleanup, I have no doubt that they will use the permissions to help safeguard our content and community from the disruptive effects of LLM misuse, an ongoing project-wide issue that urgently needs additional administrator attention. — Newslingertalk13:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Support The editor is keen and capable of achieving. Worked with them up at AI noticeboard.I would have !voted earlier but missed it.scope_creepTalk15:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Never had any direct interaction with them, but I've seen their name time and time again around the project doing good work. Like many others, shocked to learn they didn't already have the mop!57birdnerd (talk)02:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Support - the candidate is overqualified at this point, with lots of content creation, experience in more technical areas, doing lots of AI writing cleanup, contributing to the AI policy, and handling unblocks even before getting the mop.Brat Forelli🦊13:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per the two three-year-old edits cited by @Hemiauchenia. Everyone makes mistakes. That's part of how we learn to become better. I agree that people should be judged on what they did three years ago – and on how they've improved since.voorts (talk/contributions)17:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Support could this site benefit from a chaotic addition to the admin corps? Well yes, if there is an Enby in cite.ϢereSpielChequers10:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Support absolutely, very impressed with their allaround work on the Unblock Wizard and WikiProject AI Cleanup + content creation.Sarsenet•he/they•(talk)21:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Support! Seems like an excellent candidate from my interactions with them, and I'm sure they'll be an excellent admin! Best of luck. —MrConorAE(User |Talk |Contrib)08:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
I've seen Chaotic Enby around the site many times and been consistently impressed with them. Q7 gave me some slight pause when it was first asked, but the answer is everything I hoped to see, and I have no concerns.Dylan620 (he/they/she •talk •edits)15:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Bah oui, bien sûr. I haven't voted in an RfA in almost two years, and wasn't planning to make an exception, but as the timer's counted down I've found I just can't justify sitting this one out. One of the most qualified candidates I have ever seen, easily the most qualified relative to time since account creation. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)15:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
In my interactions with them, and from what I have seen of their comments in administrator's noticeboard discussions, they have fallen below the high standards I would expect from an administrator. I believe their content writing skills are mediocre, and they lack the deftness and tact to be an administrator handling important disputes, even if they have made important contributions to Wikipedia's technical side.Hemiauchenia (talk)17:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron, as Ihave in the past, I object to the practice of moving replies to opposes like this to the talk page without moving the description of the !vote itself. Per the talk page header, the discussions that should be moved there are thosenot germane to the candidacy. That applies to disruptive/badgering replies to opposes; it does not apply to legitimate responses. It should be stated for the recordhere — not on the talk page — that the responses to this oppose are germane to the candidacy, in that they seek to discredit this oppose's rationale. We should not be moving discussions to talk for the sole reason that they are replies to an oppose or that we want to reduce the length of this RfA, as that elevates the opposition rationale held by one editor over the rebuttal held by almost everyone else.Sdkbtalk16:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
@Sdkb: Would the suggestion here be that I omit the rationale of Hemiauchenia's vote here as well, since it's on talk and shouldn't be given preferential treatment over the rebuttals? That's unorthodox, but for balance reasons as you say, I'm not unopposed...theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)16:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron Ah, thank you for your question. I see that the candidate has done significant content work, therefore I added that question because in content work, there has been quite a lot of bias claims and issues. This has been quite true, especially in recent times, and I feel like bias issues form a lot of the basis of what determines an article good. I will further clarify the question, thanks.HwyNerdMike(tokk)00:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: That administratorscan do work related to the thing Chaotic Enby has a background in onwiki (AI) and the separate thing you want to talk about (PE reform) does not mean that PE reform relates to Chaotic Enby's request for permissions (anymore than it relates to Rjjiii's request, on whichyou asked the exact same question, I'll note). I'm moving your question to the talk page as amonitor action; feel free to ask a new question that is relevant to Chaotic Enby's background or fitness.theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)04:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Note: I have moved the below discussion from the oppose section to the "General comments" section, where it seems to be better placed.Mz7 (talk)01:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
@Bringingthewood: maybe i'm just not in on the joke because baseball is not my thing (please no one find my little league stats), but i'm not sure what you're driving at? possibly also because it seems like you're replying to someone, but i'm not sure who.theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)23:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
If I had a nickel for every time a baseball-related comment was made in this RfA, I'd have two nickels. It isn't a lot but it is a bit funny it happened twice.Kline •talk •contribs16:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
RadioKAOS, are you making an accusation that CE has "upload[ed] a non-free file rather than putting the effort into locating a free equivalent or even putting the effort into seeing what's already available on Commons?" Because if yes, we need a diff, and if no, how is this relevant to their candidacy?Valereee (talk)14:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
And here I thought the community was taking steps to reduce the toxicity of RFA. This clearly smacks of making something up out of thin air to attempt to control the narrative. The fact is, it's become far too easy to flood the encyclopedia with non-free files and the group of editors who have chosen to work in that area are feckless. Knowing what an adminship candidate feels on the matter is important to anticipate what to expect from them, especially in RFAs where the result is a foregone conclusion. So what excuse do you have now to attempt to censor me? Also, a whole six hours? It's Saturday, I have the day off work and I'm busy living my life. Why do you think it's okay to treat me as though I'm not showing up to my job? I don't know about any of you, but my job sure as shit isn't here. You meanWP:VOLUNTEER is one more thing that certain editors can throw around as it suits their purposes, but doesn't apply to everyone? RadioKAOS/ Talk to me, Billy/ Transmissions01:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
@RadioKAOS: The intent isn't to censor you or force you to edit; you're never required to edit, but RfAs are stressful and time-sensitive, so if a comment or question seems irrelevant or otherwise unproductive, it might get moved before you have a chance to defend it. Like I said to another editor, I don't think an RfA candidate can be reasonably expected to have nuanced thoughts on every area an admin could conceivably participate in, especially if they have no background or intent to work in that area.theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)04:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
@RadioKAOSrather than focusing on the actions done on you, may I bring your attention back to your initial statement? Can you pinpoint which NFCC file is this or the exact discussion? Theirupload log is a blank. Upload log shows deleted files. with apologies, see below.– robertsky (talk)15:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of eitherthis nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Note: I have moved the below discussion from the oppose section to the "General comments" section, where it seems to be better placed.Mz7 (talk)01:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)