Wikipedia:MONITOR

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
TechnoSquirrel69	171	0	1	100	Open	17:15, 30 June 2026	2 days, 19 hours	no	report
Chipmunkdavis	183	0	0	100	Open	10:32, 30 June 2026	2 days, 12 hours	no	report

The current time is 22:05, 27 June 2026 (UTC). —

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
TechnoSquirrel69	171	0	1	100	Open	17:15, 30 June 2026	2 days, 19 hours	no	report
Chipmunkdavis	183	0	0	100	Open	10:32, 30 June 2026	2 days, 12 hours	no	report

The current time is 22:05, 27 June 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.^[1] Prospective administrators may freely choose which process to use. The next administrator election is scheduled for October 2026.

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce community consensus and Arbitration Committee decisions by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.

About RfA

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

The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.

Nomination standards

The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).^[2] However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience, and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.

If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.

Nominations

To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate, or added after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.

Please do not transclude the RfA page until after the nomination has been accepted by the candidate, and the page, and its questions, has been filled out to the candidate's satisfaction. Be aware that the process will start the moment the RfA is transcluded to this page.

Notice of RfA

Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}} on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en.

Expressing opinions

All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with the extended confirmed right.^[3] Other comments are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not administrators or extended confirmed may be moved to this section if mistakenly placed elsewhere.

If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".

There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.

To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.

The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.

In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.^[4] In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.

In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".^[5] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.

If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.

Monitors

In the 2024 RfA review, the community authorized designated administrators and bureaucrats to act as monitors to moderate discussion at RfA. The monitors can either self-select when an RfA starts, or can be chosen ahead of time by the candidate privately. Monitors may not be involved with the candidate, may not nominate the candidate, may not !vote in the RfA, and may not close the RfA, although if the monitor is a bureaucrat they may participate in the RfA's bureaucrat discussion if there is one. In addition to normal moderation tools, monitors may remove !votes from the tally or from the discussion entirely at their discretion when the !vote contains significant policy violations that must be struck or otherwise redacted and provides no rational basis for its position – or when the comment itself is a blockable offense. The text of the !vote can still be struck and/or redacted as normal. Monitors are encouraged to review the RfA regularly. Admins and bureaucrats who are not monitors may still enforce user conduct policies and guidelines at RfA as normal.^[6]

Current nominations for adminship

The current time is 22:05:15, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

if nominations have not updated.

TechnoSquirrel69

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (171/0/1); Scheduled to end 17:15, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Monitors:

Nomination

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

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

Co-nomination statement

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

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

Questions for the candidate

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

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?

A: Over the years, I've found myself working in many areas adjacent to administrative tasks. My main reason for running is so I can better contribute in these areas with extra buttons: I would be able to close XfDs as delete, deal with patently inappropriate pages I encounter at new pages patrol, make urgent changes on cascade-protected pages for Did you know, or action requests for permissions. If given a mop, I will not be wanting for places to use it. —TS

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

A: Writing articles was my first love on this website, and I consider myself to be, first and foremost, a content contributor. I'm very proud of my work on my largest projects:

Castle in the Sky,

Princess Mononoke, and

The Snow Queen (Kernaghan novel). The latter's FAC taught me a lot about navigating the high expectations for featured articles, including deeper understanding of copyright policies and prose standards. On the back end, I helped establish and coordinate the Developing Countries WikiContest, a project to fight systemic bias in the encyclopedia; we're now coming up on our third annual installment! I've also found scouting out possible nominees for Editor of the Week to be highly rewarding. —TS

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

A: Some disputes are unavoidable on Wikipedia, and when they happen I strive to see the best in other editors, even when faced with less-than-ideal behavior, in the belief that we have the common goal of improving the encyclopedia. One incident in which I commented on a request for autopatrolled escalated into a disagreement with the requestor. Though it got under my skin, I made sure to step away until I could respond with my better judgement on my side. For a more recent example, an ANI thread was opened relating to a mass message request I handled. I accepted responsibility for my part in the error, politely but firmly argued against the proposed administrative actions I felt were unnecessary, and deferred to my more experienced colleagues when they joined the conversation. —TS

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions are disallowed, but you are allowed to ask follow-up questions related to previous questions. Make sure to use level-five section headers, not boldface.

Optional question from TonyBallioni

4. Would you mind addressing your block log? Particularly the recent account compromise, but I think the older block would also be useful to get some context behind.

A: Thanks for your question, TonyBallioni! From what I was told by volunteer functionaries and WMF Trust and Safety (which was, understandably, limited by their non-disclosure agreements), an attacker exploited a security vulnerability with several accounts at once, including my own. This vulnerability was not in my control; I had otherwise taken every step to secure my account, including a strong password, a recovery email, and two-factor authentication. (Barkeep's comment below is correct. Thanks, Barkeep!) The attacker never succeeded at accessing my account, but it was nevertheless blocked and globally locked for safety until the vulnerability was patched.

My previous block, from five years ago, was for cause. As a new editor, I had yet to develop an understanding of Wikipedia's copyright policies, and uploaded several copyright-infringing illustrations for the drafts I was working on. After I understood where I'd gone wrong, I apologized and successfully appealed the block. The incident left me with a heightened awareness of Wikipedia's stance on copyright compliance, and I've since grown much more familiar with the area as a new pages patroller. —TS

Optional question from Ritchie333

5. I'm not bothered about the recent block; that can happen to active administrators too, but I want to discuss more about the older one. I don't recall seeing a RfA candidate (or at least one with a likelihood of passing) with an indefinite good faith block for violating policy, even if it was five years ago, particularly when the blocking administrator said "You were blocked for repeatedly violating (emphasis mine) the non-free content policy by using non-free media ". Can you explain briefly, were you warned about non-free content policy before being blocked, and what have you understood about this since then, and do you have examples illustrating this?

A: Hey Ritchie333! I'm happy to elaborate. Some of the details escape me as this was some time ago, but part of the learning curve as a new editor was becoming acquainted with the edit history page, something I didn't fully grasp at that point. The block was over my editing at Mirror (Porter Robinson song) (then in draftspace). Without realizing a bot was automatically removing it, due to my ignorance of the history page, I repeatedly restored the song's cover art, thinking there had been some kind of error. As I mentioned, I took the time to understand the policies involved and appealed the block.

I've since become familiar with navigating copyright concerns as a new pages patroller. I always use Earwig's copyvio detector to catch obvious cases of plagiarism, and I sometimes go a step further and investigate for close paraphrasing (example) if necessary. If I discover a violation, I remove the offending text and request revision deletion under RD1, or tag it for full deletion under CSD G12. I'm also comfortable with assessing copyright with images. In addition to the file-related tagging in my enwiki CSD log, my log on Commons may also be relevant. —TS

Optional question from Daniel Case

6. What led you to seek adminship via RfA rather than election?

A: Thanks for your question, Daniel! I don't have any special reasons beyond the themes you've likely heard in discussions about AELECT already: I prefer that the (!)voting is public, I feel the community has more time to make an informed decision, I liked having control over the scheduling of my run, etc. I do believe AELECT has been a resounding success — the scores of talented editors who now have the tools are testament to it — it just wasn't for me! —TS

Optional question from NYC Guru

7. Under what conditions would you block a new user indefinitely?

A: Thanks for your question, NYC Guru. As I mentioned above, I try to assume good faith for as long as possible, even with disruptive editors. Regardless of the user's experience, most disruption can be handled using our system of escalating warnings. If the editor continues their poor behavior after being sufficiently warned, they can be seen to the door. However, in cases of severe abuse, an indefinite block may be warranted immediately to prevent further damage. This would have to rise above the level of petty vandalism; threats of physical harm or legal action are examples. —TS

Optional question from Least Action

8. What made you interested in WP:PERM/AP in the first place?

A: Hey Least Action, thank you for your question! I noticed in my first few months as a new pages patroller that I consistently ran into well-written articles from the same creators, particularly if I was going down the line in a single topic area. Giving these editors autopatrolled would clearly have a multiplicative effect in reducing the ever-mounting backlog at NPP. I had heard from administrators working that queue that nominations and second opinions from active NPP-ers were often useful in their decision-making, so decided to pitch in where I could. I found that I enjoyed this alternative patrolling workflow of checking a single user's body of work and, as a bonus, more than once found worthy Editor of the Week recipients in the process! —TS

Optional question from asilvering

9. If you (as a Wikipedia editor) were an animal, what animal would you be? (Sciuridae excepted, that's cheating.)

A: Contrary to what the username would suggest, I don't actually identify much with squirrels as a person, though it's nevertheless a pleasure to be sharing the RfA stage with another Sciuridae-themed candidate! As an editor, however, I can't deny a significant overlap with the WikiSquirrel style as I frequently flit from topic to topic with my interests. That's cheating, though, so I also feel quite editorially dog-like (though not WikiDog-like!). Every once in a while, I pick a topic and remain loyal to it — for example, I've been stewarding Castle in the Sky since I became an active editor, and hope to take it to FAC soon! Thanks for your question, asilvering. :) —TS

Optional question from InfernoHues

10. If you could go back in time and give yourself advice as a beginning editor, what would it be?

Discussion

Links for TechnoSquirrel69: TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Edit summary usage for TechnoSquirrel69 can be found here.

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

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

Support

First! Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 17:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Been keeping an eye on this one for a while, support. ~delta _{{talk • cont • 🇰🇷 • 🎢}} 17:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Yes! --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Sure. I've had plenty of positive experiences with this user. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 17:27, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Obviously GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 17:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
As nom, In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 17:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Support haven't had a bad experience when interacting with them, no concerns from me. – LuniZunie_(talk) 17:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Support I especially enjoyed reading Capitol Hill mystery soda machine. Rolluik (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Support We seem to have a habit of doing RfAs in batches as of recent. fanfanboy (block_talk) 17:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Support, nothing but positive impressions from his prolific and constructive work at DYK. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Unhesitating support. I've worked with TS69 before, and been impressed with their calm and diligence. They've done excellent content work and excellent project-space work, and they are a natural addition to the admin corps. I would have nominated if that had not been thoroughly redundant. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Support. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Zzz plant (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Support - I've both met the candidate in person and seen his work on wiki and have no issues with this candidacy. The noms pretty much sum it up. The only significant block (aside from the suspected account compromise, which was thankfully resolved quickly) was from over five years ago, I don't think it is a problem today if the problem hasn't recurred. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
finally!!! I've been hoping TechnoSquirrel would run for a long time – nothing but good things to say about him and his DYK work. he's sharp, diligent, kind, and always willing to hold himself to account – I have full confidence in TS and I'd be delighted to see what someone with his skills could do with a mop. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Elli (talk | contribs) 18:28, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Support! Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 18:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
I've been badgering TS69 to run since last year, so glad that they finally have gone for it! -- Sohom (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Long overdue! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
I have had nothing but good experiences of our friend here. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley $\lor$ investigateᛅ} 18:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
This is an editor I have run into several times and I can recall being impressed with their work, Support. Lynch 44 18:41, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Reasonable response to my question. Thanks for being willing to answer it directly even as others had already responded to the main part. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Support, extremely overdue. Best, Staraction (talk · contribs) 18:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Good answer to block question: TS69 stumbled with first edits, recovered appropriately after the block. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Support In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 19:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Support, naturally. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 19:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Looks fine. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 19:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Support. Absolutely! Trusted noms and they do good work. CoconutOctopus talk 19:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Support. Aoba47 (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
—Kusma (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Flock yes. charlotte ^👸♥ 19:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
I've had the pleasure to meet him in person and he's a lovely lad and would make a great admin. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Support! A kind, productive contributor who will do well with the tools. GoldRomean (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Excited to see him finally go for the mop. I anticipate him being a great admin. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Cicada1010 (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Don't see why not. LightlySeared (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Support FaviFake (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Support EaglesFan37 (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Support A nice person that should have already been an administrator. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Rand Freeman _{talk ⬩ in solidarity} 20:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Excellent candidate. Thank you for running. Toadspike [Talk] 20:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Absolutely! I have always been impressed with TS69’s wide range of talents, from content creation to his work countering systemic bias through the Developing Countries WikiContest. But most importantly, I love how he makes it his mission to spread kindness, whether through his frequent nominations at editor of the week or giving thoughtful barnstars to others.
For what it's worth, I'll put my name down as another functionary who can confirm the compromised account was not his fault in any way. At all. He did everything right. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 20:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Easy support. TS has been a patient and diligent editor whose expertise will be put to great use with mop in hand. ThaesOfereode (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
—Ingenuity (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Support. Thought he already was an admin! Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Support. I have no serious concerns. thunkii (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Support. Wait, he's not an admin? —TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 21:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Mfield (Oi!) 21:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Support. Squirrels are cool, and this user has also done great collaboratory work on the backend side of Wikipedia. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Chipmunks, squirrels - any other competent and effective woodland creatures want to put themselves forward today? Girth Summit _(blether) 22:42, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Reconrabbit unfortunately already elected. ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support! In solidarity, nil^nz 22:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Support: Thank you for stepping up! YuniToumei (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Support. He is helpful at peer reviews, and I am confident he will do well as an administrator. Z. Patterson (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Support! I had the great pleasure of meeting TechnoSquirrel earlier this year at an editor's meetup and was greatly impressed by the breadth of his wiki knowledge, ready and confident answers to questions, and helpful feedback on others' edits. I am confident he will be an awesome admin! :) silviaASH (inquire within) 23:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Very easy support, and thrilled to do so. I've consistently been impressed with TS's content (I was lucky enough to review both GAs mentioned above) and his admin-adjacent work—and especially his conduct—speaks for itself. I know he will continue to do great work as an admin. – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 00:30, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support. This one's been ready for the mop for going on two years now. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:41, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Ternera (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support I have no worries. 1brianm7 (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support toby ^(t)(rw) 01:00, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Cielquiparle (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support TarnishedPath^talk 01:06, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support, indeed. ~SG 5536B 01:12, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support - InfernoHues (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 01:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Whonting (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Adding my support to a worthy candidate. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support based on their advanced usage rights so far, especially as a template editor. Let me expand on something from the nomination statements above. Sennecaster mentioned that "he does excellent work at WP:DYK, which my own forays into promoting and checking queues have seen no issues ...". TS himself says that, as an admin, he could "make urgent changes on cascade-protected pages for Did you know". The context, for those unfamiliar with the Wikipedia:Did you know hooks, is that before they appear on the main page, the hooks are arranged into sets initially built in preparation areas (preps). Any editor can nominate articles, propose hook facts, approve those hooks, or build the prep sets. These sets are then double-checked and promoted to queues by an admin or template editor (this was previously an admin-only task, but that was resulting in burnout). TS built plenty of preps, applied for template editor permissions to promote preps, and then promoted plenty of sets from prep to queue. These queued sets rotate forward on a mostly daily basis until each set rotates into {{Did you know}}, which is transcluded onto the main page, so TS has already edited Main Page content, albeit indirectly. However, the main page templates and the next 48 hours of queued sets are all admin protected. If someone spots an issue at WP:ERRORS, they will usually be commenting on one of these three admin-protected sets. When editors have brought up concerns, TS has responded appropriately,^[example] but currently has to rely on other editors to implement changes. This is all positive, but something I think bodes well for admin tool usage is that template editor privileges for DYK sets also technically enable an editor to change any template-protected page, including many heavily transcluded templates (e.g. {{Location map}}). TS technically could have just done this, but instead sought consensus in the same way that any editor would normally have to apply if they did not already have the permission. I think this shows much consideration and respect for other editors. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:32, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 04:12, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support. ShadowBallX (talk) 05:03, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support – TechnoSquirrel is an exceedingly thoughtful contributor who I am sure will make a great administrator. Being a squirrel is a big plus too. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 05:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:58, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Glad to Support. Volten001 ^☎ 06:01, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support. Excellent content contributions. TechnoSquirrel69's efforts to counter systemic bias through the Developing Countries WikiContest are commendable. — Newslinger talk 06:15, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Chlod (say hi!) 06:38, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support, the effort TechnoSquirrel69 puts into DYK, carefully checking articles they promote and raising issues they find in a clear manner, shows judgement, content knowledge, and communication. Coordination of DCWC is another volunteer position I have seen their work in for a few years now. A mop would be likely be well handled. CMD (talk) 06:43, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support – not a username I recognised, but I'm impressed by the noms and answers to questions. Graham87 (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Why not? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:52, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support. A very talented editor, and has run a tight ship at DCWC! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 08:17, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Huge Support, have an encounter with him a couple of times. Destinyokhiria _{(talk / cont)} 09:14, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Clear net positive. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support. Does good, careful work. He's made some mistakes, but has learned from them (and if you never make a mistake, you're not doing anything worth doing.) I think he will make a very good and thoughtful admin. Entirely off topic, I find it quite amusing that we currently have both a squirrel and a chipmunk at RfA together. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:44, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support absolute support, nothing else. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 10:27, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support, obviously. RoySmith (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support, no issues here. Let'srun (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support, glad to see this name nominated. Good luck with the mop, TS. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 12:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support — In solidarity, Penn65 talk 12:09, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Hey man im josh (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support. My past experiences seeing this candidate around have involved them taking on complicated tasks and doing them skillfully. Would be a good admin. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:31, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support: See only indications that they would be a fine admin. Not sure I've interacted at all with them, but I'll take the glowing reviews of their work and conduct as evidence the project will benefit from them having the mop. Best of luck, ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
sapphaline (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Has clue, is polite. Doubleplus good. --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support ⇌ Synpath 14:16, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Looks like a dedicated editor to me ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 14:17, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support. A constant and active member of Editor of the Week. Always takes the time to acknowledge others. 100% community builder.Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 14:20, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support: I've seen him around, didn't even realize he wasn't an admin. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 14:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 14:42, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support thank you for volunteering ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support. sure, per noms — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:30, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Another enthusiastic support for another clueful and experienced candidate. Very pleased to see two RfAs running simulataneously for two great editors who would make excellent admins. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:13, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:14, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support. MSincccc (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support! I especially appreciate TechnoSquirrel's diligence with DYK. — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 16:56, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Fathoms Below (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support --Minoa (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support - no concerns. Giant Snowman 20:15, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Yes!!! --📎 JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 20:53, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support, looks good. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 21:22, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support. I like the way the candidate has handled questions during the RfA. Good combination of content and technical experience. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Nice --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:38, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Justi yaya 22:58, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support We met at WCNA 2025; he will be an asset to the mop corps. ^Complex/_Rational 23:10, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support no cause to deny a rfa. – robertsky (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Riley1012 (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Support I like folk who learn from their mistakes. Everything else tells me that he'll make good use of the tools. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:06, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Will be fine. Risker (talk) 05:14, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Seems to be a good addition. Jordano^5³ 05:51, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Yup KylieTastic (talk) 10:09, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Support, no concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:27, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Support - Great answers to questions, no other concerns. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:27, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Support I am happy to help uplift those in my clade (and I always like seeing your name at PERM!) -- Reconrabbit (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Support – no words needed, a great user and seemingly great person. CoryGlee 12:58, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
I support this candidate. Shoutout to User:Ritchie333--thanks for weighing in here old friend. Drmies (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Support with excitement! Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:09, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Support ScalarFactor (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Support, experienced user, trust without issue. Star Mississippi 17:40, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Support: only good things to say from various interactions around this place. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:06, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Support - good candidate. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
might as well support DS (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Tenshi! (Talk page) 19:24, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Support — Clueful, kind, experienced. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 20:10, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Giulio 22:17, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Support – Yue🌙 (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Support. Thanks for being willing to wield the mop! Loopy30 (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Bringingthewood (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Looks good, no concerns. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Support ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:26, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Support. Competent hardworking editor, some great content work, I've seen them around at DYK and other places, and will be a great addition to the admin corps. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Support good editor I've had great experiences with, very good candidate for adminship jolielover♥talk 07:30, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Support after a quick look. -- Least Action (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Good candidate,— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Support. MCE89 (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Support - I encouraged Techno to run for admin last year and was very glad to see that they finally did so! Nothing but positive things to say here :). ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 17:59, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Divinations (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Support without any concerns. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Support I totally get the explanation for the non-free content in a draft article, not a big deal.Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Support I know this user from DYK. Strong candidate; thank for standing. Will make a fine admin. Schwede 66 21:46, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Support—Kurtis ^(talk) 21:47, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Support per answers to questions and experience. --NYC Guru (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Support. Beta Beta Beta - talk 02:46, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Overdue. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 05:03, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Support with lots of work on DYK promoting hooks! JuniperChill (talk) 08:19, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
SupportCool – DreamRimmer ■ 11:02, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Support with no concerns. Great candidate. Wozal (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Support. I trust you. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Support - Has the right temperament, is knowledgeable, and trustworthy. Would make a great admin. Netherzone (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Think their really nice as a user. Would support them being an admin (even though I thought they were already) Theeverywhereperson talk here ^{In solidarity!} 14:53, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Very happy to endorse. Thank you for taking the mop. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Best wishes Josey Wales^Parley 15:14, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Very qualified candidate who answered all their questions well and I trust the noms. I am also not convinced by the argument put fourth by the neutral voter. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 17:17, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Wishing you the best from North Carolina! Johnson524 18:03, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Has a rigid interpretation of guidelines. See Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Jacob Huesman. TechnoSquirrel69 thinks "In 2017, [Huesman] competed with undrafted rookie Shane Smith for the Giants' fullback position" is a controversial statement for a BLP. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
TechnoSquirrel pulled that DYK because WP:NYPOST was being used as a source for sports-related BLP info, which seems like a pretty reasonable position, considering that the Post is marked as "generally unreliable for factual reporting". — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 17:04, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

You knowingly cited at least two NYP articles in a BLP. I'm assuming you knew that the NYP is considered GUNREL, and I think you probably knew editors would object to its use. Instead of changing the citation and asking for the article to be returned to the queue, which is what a reasonable person would do, you've chosen to be petty and address this at RfA. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
TechnoSquirrel69 ultimately agreed that the Post's sports coverage was reliable. —Bagumba (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Well, then this is even more of a non-issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
It was not resolved until after this issue was mentioned here. —Bagumba (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Storm in a teacup, this. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

There's no other citation to change it to. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

General comments

@TonyBallioni: while the block was appropriate at the time under policy, there was nothing TechnoSquirrel69 could have done to avoid the situation. This is not at all similar to previous situations where a compromise happened due to things like reusing passwords. I don't want to reveal something that I know by virtue of being a checkuser and which is covered by the ANPDP, so if there's more public information on that situation I hope Techno or someone else will post it here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks. I gathered that from the history in the diffs, so I’m not overly concerned. I just generally prefer people to be proactive when discussing their block log so felt it worth raising as a question. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- As the blocking admin, I'd just vouch for what Barkeep49 said. This was a very unusual situation which I can't really go into. In the interests of transparency, the block was related to some global stuff. There's also some talk page chat. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)