Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Red-tailed hawk

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Red-tailed hawk

Final (207/6/8); closed as successful by SilkTork (talk) at 03:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination

Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs) – I met Red-tailed hawk on meta just over a year ago when they sought the tools to help another wiki address copyright issues. I did not think our interaction would grow as much as it did in a year. From when they turned my first skepticism in my first interaction to the conversations we have today – it’s one of the fastest growth paths I’ve seen both individually and as a contributor.

That’s not to say it was without growing pains; there were some, as we’d expect, with every contributor becoming more than themselves. We've had very productive but intellectually stimulating discussions which have actually made me pause and think. We don’t always agree, but we can both see each other’s viewpoint and respect it. Several discussions have involved complicated or sensitive matters, whether oversight or CU interactions, dealing with LTAs via edit filters, or how to assist other editors in growing. Red-tailed hawk has definitely shown the need-to-know background thought process that we expect each admin to have and exercise.

To speak to more of Red-tailed hawk’s work, they are a 27k edit contributor over three years. They have held the requisite non-admin tools, returned them if not using them, and even stepped up to one of the most complicated tasks of edit filter. They have also taken on other roles, such as commons admin and Steward clerk, while keeping pace better than I can with all that goes on.

With that, it is my pleasure to nominate Red-tailed hawk for adminship, and I hope you will have them as a solid addition to our administrator corps. -- Amanda (she/her) 00:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Co-nomination statement

It's my pleasure to co-nominate Red-tailed hawk for adminship. He already does much of the work of an administrator, and he should be given the tools to do the rest of the job. I first noticed Red-tailed hawk when I got notified that a mop was reserved in his name. What stood out to me most was his successful request for edit filter manager, a permission we don't give by default to administrators. The permission grants the ability to tag or disallow edits in bulk and unbundles from sysop the ability to view non-public parts of our anti-spam infrastructure. I found myself agreeing with those who opposed his bid: he should request sysop instead. Then he could just grant it to himself.

When he asked me to nominate him, I went back and looked more closely at his content contributions. His GAs and DYKs stand on their own, but what struck me was his ability to write quality content in lower-resourced or controversial topics. Red-tailed hawk made major contributions to Driving in Madagascar and Uyghur genocide. These help address our systemic bias in coverage, and they demonstrate his collaboration skills even in difficult topic areas. It's those skills which give me confidence he has enough clue to work well in areas where content and conduct overlap such as speedy deletions, contentious topics, and copyright clean-up. His contributions to sister projects, which Amanda covers better, provide only more reasons for me to trust Red-tailed hawk with the admin tools.

Red-tailed hawk is already an administrator without tools. He handles conflict well, contributes to abuse prevention, and is trusted with privileged information. My only regret is that he does not have enough buttons to do those jobs more efficiently. He shows the right qualities for the tools, and better yet he will put them to use. I look forward to what else he will accomplish, and I hope you all will join me in supporting his request. — Wug·a·po·des 00:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this nomination. I have never edited for pay, and other relevant disclosures can be found at User:Red-tailed hawk/disclosures. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:44, 29 December 2023 (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’m interested in helping out more directly in administrative areas by performing RD1 revision deletions, actioning G12 speedy deletion requests, and acting as an administrator in the copyright space more broadly. I enjoy my time serving as an administrator on Wikimedia Commons, where I've primarily dealt with copyright-related deletion requests and speedy deletions involving images, and I spend time here volunteering at CopyPatrol, CCI, and the Copyright Problems noticeboard. Just like on Commons, I hope to work on the English Wikipedia dealing with written copyright violations in an administrative capacity.

In addition to working in the copyright space, I also hope to make blocks related to accounts that trip certain abuse filters, expanding on my current role as an edit filter manager. Most of my work in that capacity thus far has been related to the creation/maintenance of anti-abuse filters as well as debugging/responding to false positive reports. I also hope to close Articles for Deletion discussions in my role as an administrator.

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

A: I think my best contributions to Wikipedia have been my GAs. I’ve had fun writing them, and I think that the structure and peer review helps to make the articles better products than if I were to just write them alone; co-writing the GA’d version of Driving in Madagascar stands out as one of the more pleasant experiences I’ve had on Wikipedia. I’ve also enjoyed sending ~20 articles to DYK; while I have not gotten it to GA, my favorite experience with this was expanding Grotto of Our Lady of Lourdes, Notre Dame from a one-sentence stub into a B-class article.

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

A: I was involved in two related disputes regarding the name of Zahm Hall in March and September 2021. The difference between my experience and that of the page’s creator—who had several years of editing under their belt—caused me a bit of stress as an editor at the time. The debate focused on WP:COMMONNAME and sourcing, resulting in an unresolved disagreement despite extensive discussion. With more experience, I revisited the issue in September 2021, proposing an alternative name for inclusion in the lead. However, disagreement persisted with the same editor. Realizing the need for outside perspectives, I initiated a Request for Comment, seeking external input to address the content dispute. During the period between discussions, I became more comfortable working with experienced editors, learned that these sorts of disputes are not something to get stressed about, and adopted a more collaborative approach in handling content disputes.

In general, my approach regarding content disputes is to try to discuss on article talk pages and, when consensus is difficult to attain, to try to resolve the dispute by seeking compromise wording or opening up requests for comment/making third opinion requests.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Optional question from Giraffer

4. Within the past year, you've become a steward clerk, an administrator on Commons, an EFH and then EFM here, and (unsuccessfully) requested CheckUser access on Commons. How do you allocate your time between these roles, and do you forsee this changing if you are granted adminship?

A: In these sorts of non-content work, I think it's useful to distinguish from tasks that require a lot of thinking to perform and tasks that don't require a lot of thinking but need to be grinded out en masse for the backlog to be meaningfully reduced. Some of the more complex tasks I'm involved with are writing edit filters, modifying edit filters in response to false positives, closing complex deletion requests on Commons, writing new articles, and (at times) handling complex entries on CopyPatrol or the Copyright Problems noticeboard. Several other items, such as handling routine VRT tasks, handling simpler UTRS/VRT Stewards Clerk tasks, and handling speedy deletion requests on Commons for unfree Flickr files/blank file pages/blatant image copyright violations, require less brainpower per task handled.

With respect to how I approach contributing, I've found myself handling weekdays and weekends differently. Aside from writing content and participating in miscellaneous discussions that pop up, I generally set a goal for weekends when I have free time regarding administrative tasks that I want to get done, whether that be getting in the zone and hammering out a very repetitive task without interruption, or handling some of the more thought-intensive non-content tasks while I have time to think more deeply. Of course, sometimes urgent things come up on-wiki that one can't really plan for (for example, the new creation of abuse filters in response to an active LTA), and my plans get put on hold, but that's just the nature of some of the work. On weekdays, how I spend my time really depends on my general life situation a bit more; I'm less likely to have the energy do the more cerebral sorts of work required for writing/debugging edit filters if my job goes late or is particularly stressful, and I've been more likely to handle the simpler Commons tasks/steward clerk items if I have time to edit.

As an admin on the English Wikipedia, my time management philosophy would remain similar to what it is now—work on simpler administrative tasks (such as blocking an obvious vandal who also keeps triggering the page blanking/section blanking filters, or making blocks and actioning related RD1/G12 requests when someone keeps copy-pasting whole articles from today's edition of The New York Times into Wikipedia despite and after warnings) when I have less energy/less ability to think deeply, and work on more complex tasks (such as handling more complex copyright problems from an administrative standpoint) when I have the brainpower—I'd just have to apply the philosophy to the set of tasks I'd be handling as an administrator here. I've found myself in recent months having less and less work to do in the Stewards Clerk sphere, and I anticipate that I won't be spending as much time handling backlogs there going forward. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from Indignant Flamingo

5. Thanks for running. Birds rule. But let's get this out of the way. Your original username was potentially offensive, and when Tamzin pointed that out, you declined to make any changes. But then you wanted to be an SPI clerk, and Reaper Eternal pointed out that your potentially offensive username would probably get in the way of that as well as any admin ambitions you had. So you changed it. Two questions, then. First, in retrospect, should you have been more receptive to Tamzin's earlier suggestion? Second, how will your experience inform your assessment of potentially offensive usernames that you may need to evaluate as an administrator?

A: Yes, I should have taken Tamzin's kindly advice in January 2021, rather than waiting until November 2021 to change my username for the first time. With respect to the second part, I probably am a bit less hawkish towards productive editors who have marginal usernames than are most. I don't anticipate taking action on marginal usernames myself at UAA; I don't make posts at UAA frequently, and admittedly I am not an expert on the precedents there, so I anticipate that I'll continue to let the more experienced UAA folks make the decisions on the more marginal cases going forward. That being said, I anticipate that I will take actions myself in the more obvious cases that I encounter in the wild. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from Mach61

6. Would you delete a high quality article created in violation of ARBECR?

A: WP:ECR states that Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required, which leaves it up to an individual admin's discretion. In general, I'd be loath to summarily delete a high-quality article merely because of a user's edit count. And, if extended-confirmed editors have contributed to the page substantially after its creation, then I would simply not delete the page (compare WP:G5, which applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others) even if it was created by an IP or a new account. My view of the discretion that is put into ECR is that summary deletion should be used as a last resort—some standard akin to guidance around summary deletion in WP:BLPDELETE seems reasonable. (I will also note that there is presently a discussion that may change the scope of G5 as it pertains to how it interacts with WP:ECR, so my reading here may be obsolete in a month or so.) — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Optional questions from SchroCat

7. Could you show what experience you have in resolving disputes between editors?

A: Sure. Something that started doing fairly early on in my active editing days was closing RfCs, which are integral to resolving certain complex disputes. I have a tendency to write long closes, and I don't mind going through long discussions; some of the more complicated discussions I've closed involve an RfC regarding COVID-19, an RfC on the notability of Olympic athletes, and a protracted RfC regarding the scope of Founding Fathers of the United States (as a part of a panel with Sideswipe9th and Firefangledfeathers).

I've also occasionally been sought-out as a third-party in intractable disputes to try to propose some compromise wording. The first case that comes to mind is a content dispute that arose in the Armenia–Azerbaijan topic area, where two editors who couldn't agree on phrasing in the Zangezur corridor article, and both came to my talk page and asked me to give a third opinion. The resulting discussion was fairly long and thorough, and by the end all parties seemed satisfied with the compromise wording.

Hopping over to how I've handled disputes as an administrator on Commons: I generally don't find myself to be a hanging admin, and I generally try to only block to prevent disruption going forward. For example, in a recent case, an individual who was subject to a topic ban from speedy deletion had accidentally uploaded a file to Commons and had tagged it for deletion as an accidental upload. A user then brought the individual to the Commons equivalent of ANI, stating that this was a violation of the topic ban on the user. Now, this was a topic ban violation as written, but after reading through the discussions that led to the ban, it looked like the reason for the topic ban had come about from the individual having inappropriately tagged others' files for deletion, and tagging one's own upload for speedy deletion as an accident didn't appear to be disruptive. As such, rather than summarily blocking the individual in my capacity as an administrator, I exercised discretion to propose that the topic ban be modified to allow the individual to tag their own uploads for speedy deletion. At the end of the day, the community widely agreed that the ban should be modified to better account for this edge case, and the situation was resolved without the use of the block tool. I will note that administrative norms regarding enforcement of topic bans are a bit different at Commons and on Wikipedia (Wikipedia has WP:BMB, while Commons doesn't have an equivalent and consequently handles topic bans in a much more ad hoc manner), but I hope this provides a bit of insight into my thought process as it comes to flexibly handling more mundane conduct disputes as an administrator.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

8. What did you learn from those experiences?

A: From these experiences, I've learned several lessons:

1. Patience, thoroughness, respect for others’ time, and community involvement: Resolving disputes requires patience and a willingness to thoroughly examine all sides of an argument. Getting third parties involved (such as via a third opinion request or a request for comment) can help the community better understand a dispute’s nuances and can be useful in attaining a broader consensus—particularly so when disputes are complex or take place in a contentious area. That being said, when opening these sorts of formal requests, we should be mindful that we are potentially taking up a lot of other editors’ time; when normal discussion is moving towards a reasonable consensus, even if slowly, formally involving additional third parties might not be the most efficient way forward.
2. Mediation and compromise: Acting as a third-party mediator can involve proposing compromise wordings or solutions that can satisfy editors who might have radically different views of what the proper outcome is. Guiding discussions towards a resolution that all involved parties can accept, while remaining faithful to the source material, is the ideal outcome, but it’s not always the case that everybody will agree, or even that some rough consensus will form based upon local mediation. When mediation and local discussion fail to resolve a substantial dispute, then opening an RfC or raising the issue to a related noticeboard to get additional input may be warranted.
3. Discretion and context: When acting as an administrator, applying discretion based on the specific circumstances of a situation is crucial. Taking administrative actions in non-trivial user conduct cases may well require nuanced understanding of a complex dispute, especially when the intent behind a particular sanction or the broader history of the user’s actions is salient. After all, blocks should be preventative in nature, and I believe that bans should tend towards being narrowly tailored to address a user’s disruption rather than being overbroad.
4. Balancing policies and practicality: Striking a balance between strictly adhering to the letter of policies and being practical and empathetic towards fellow editors is important. There are times where one might have policy justification for dropping the site-wide block hammer on someone, but applying a much more narrow sanction (such as a pageblock) or even a stern-but-cordial warning might better serve the broader goal of resolving disputes civilly.

Overall, these sorts of experiences have taught me the importance of empathy and flexibility in navigating both content and conduct disputes.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. - SchroCat (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from Brat Forelli

9. Hawk, though I currently support your nomination, I found this statement from you very alarming. I find it very hostile to socialist and communist-minded Wikipedians out there. In case of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, both sides can be deemed brutal in regards to civilians, yet it does not make supporting either side morally unthinkable or disqualifying for an admin. Do you believe that supporting Stasi or the Warsaw Pact regimes is disqualifying for an admin or otherwise impermissible?

A:

Optional question from Gog the Mild

10. What, if anything, did you learn from the process of nominating Driving in Madagascar for FA?

A: I learned primarily how hard it is to get an article to FA, and how much work that editors who are regular FA writers put in to get their articles to that status. I am truly in awe of contributors here who are content machines—TonyTheTiger and Sammi Brie for instance—and I wish that I had their energy and drive when it comes to writing voluminous amounts of quality content. But I'm not them, and I don't have their abilities in the content sphere. Being my first time nominating an article for FA, I should have waited for my co-author to be fully available before I submitted that nomination so that we could handle the task together and so that it would be more likely that we could do the work to bring the article to FA. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Optional questions from Robert McClenon

11. What exactly are the responsibilities of an administrator on Commons?

A: The primary role of an administrator on Wikimedia Commons is to perform certain maintenance tasks that can only be handled by trusted users. From a technical standpoint, these tasks include page and file (un)deletions, revision deletions, blocks, page protections, edit filter management, and the provisioning of certain user rights, among other less common items. Administrators are also generally responsible for closing certain discussions, such as deletion requests, and maintaining some pages that are part of the bot-assisted/automated copyright and anti-spam systems (such as the Questionable Flickr images master list and the local spam blacklist). A fuller summary of the things an administrator can do on Commons can be found at c:Commons:Administrators and c:Commons:Guide to adminship. As for myself, I've spent most of my admin time on Commons taking actions in the copyright realm, such as by reviewing requests for speedy deletion, closing deletion requests, and to a lesser extent handling undeletion requests, though I also spent some time over the summer working on addressing disruption caused by sockpuppeteers. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

12. Can you envision any ways that being an administrator on both Commons and the English Wikipedia could either be beneficial to your service as an English Wikipedia administrator, or cause a conflict of focus?

A: There's a good bit of synergy that comes from being an admin on Commons as well as an admin on Wikipedia, with some of the more obvious benefits coming in the copyright and anti-spam scopes. With respect to copyright, aside from the image copyright experience gained as a Commons admin, the experience would most directly translates to handling image copyrights here as well as knowing when to move files to Commons and delete the local version as opposed to simply keeping the file local. With respect to anti-spam, the sorts of low-quality pages that might get deleted per G11 here may well carry spammy images that get tagged on Commons advertising or Personal photos by non-contributors—being able to handle both places affected by the same disruption saves others' time and can address issues quicker. There's also some synergy when it comes to taking action on cross-wiki sockpuppetry. I don't expect this will be a substantial part of my time as an admin on the English Wikipedia, but I will note for your consideration an example where I discovered an active EnWiki sockpuppet of a indef'd master only after I noticed the sock's interactions with particular images uploaded by the master that I had encountered on Commons while patrolling for copyright violations.

More importantly than any task-specific synergy, though, I think the experience of being an admin on Commons has helped me more deeply understand the responsibility that administrators have to the community that they serve. On Commons, administrators are always required to provide explanations of administrative actions, and we are expected to adhere to policies and, where appropriate, to community consensus. We can even be held directly accountable to the Commons community through a binding de-adminship process. At the end of the day, I've found that at the core to being a good admin on Commons is not merely knowing the relevant policies well, but also acting with humility and being willing to admit when one has taken an action in error. Should the community appoint me an administrator, I will bring this same ethic to my administrative work here.

With respect to "conflict of focus", there's only a finite amount of time that I have for editing and performing administrative work, and the opportunity cost of doing admin work on the English Wikipedia is my doing work elsewhere. I'd also like to expand a point I touched upon a bit in my response to question 7: some of the administrative and policy norms on the English Wikipedia are quite different from those on Commons—Wikipedia has a lot more in terms procedural policy than does Commons, and the media freedom requirements enforced on Commons are much stricter than those on Wikipedia (for example, Commons absolutely prohibits files uploaded under claims of fair use and requires that works be free in their home country in addition to the U.S. while Wikipedia has non-free content criteria and templates like {{PD-ineligible-USonly}})—though several are quite similar. And there are several users, such as Ymblanter, Materialscientist, DMacks, who contribute to administrative work both here and on Commons, and they make it work. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from JPxG

13. At any time along the course of this RfA, have you wanted to respond to any comments or discussions, or address the deal with something in greater detail, and if so, what is your spiel on said deal? Feel free to answer this at any time, or leave it blank, or whatever.

A:

Optional questions from Beccaynr

14. As an administrator, how might you respond (or not) to an editor who continues to post to another editor's usertalk page, after the other editor continues to request that the first editor comment at article talk discussion instead? In your answer, please refer to any relevant policies, guidelines, or essays that might inform your response.

A: In this general scenario, when Editor 1 persistently posts on Editor 2's talk page against and after Editor 2's explicit requests that Editor 1 stop doing so, I would probably start by reminding Editor 1 that relevant guidelines (such as WP:USERTALKSTOP) would encourage Editor 1 to stop making further posts on Editor 2's talk page regarding the same issue. To do so, I'd likely drop a note on Editor 1's talk page asking Editor 1 to use other appropriate venues for the content dispute (which should generally start at the disputed article's talk page rather than user talk pages) or the conduct dispute (the first step is to talk with the other editor at their user talk page, but if this isn't resolving the dispute then it should either be dropped if there really isn't a conduct problem going on or if the problem's otherwise been resolved, or taken to the appropriate administrative noticeboard should the problem rise to that level) going forward. A more specific approach would vary based on the nature of the dispute (content or conduct), the history of the users’ behavior (for example, is there a pattern of ignoring requests to take content disputes to article talk pages, has there been previous guidance or warnings given to the users in similar scenarios before that have not changed this pattern of behavior, or is this a one-off thing), and whether this sort of thing is proceeding from one user’s relative lack of experience and knowledge of community norms (as would be common in new users). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

15. Please discuss an AfD nomination or !vote that you have reconsidered since making the nomination or !vote, your thinking on the application of relevant policies and guidelines, including how your view may have further developed.

A: My September 2021 nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Love Beijing Tiananmen comes to mind. This was one of my earlier AfD nominations that I had made, and it's one that I wound up withdrawing. I had initially nominated the article for deletion after looking more or less only at the other Wikipedia articles on the song and with a quick google search. Looking back, this doesn't constitute a sourcing check consistent with the expectations in Part D of WP:BEFORE. As a result, a mere 2.5 hours after I made nomination, another editor presented a wall of sources that demonstrated that the article easily passed WP:NSONG and the WP:GNG. I withdrew the AfD that same day the sources were presented, a mere 16 hours after the AfD was filed. In more recent times, I've spent quite a bit more time conducting my sourcing checks prior to nominating or voting at AfD (consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Lipscomb for example, where part of my source search led to me making new snippets from Newspapers.com articles and !voting that the article be kept even when all prior participants had indicated a preference of deletion). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from Blueskiesdry

16. What do you feel is your worst edit and how would you do it differently today?

A: There isn't one worst edit that specifically jumps out in my head, though I think that the times where I misread diffs on Huggle and inadvertently restored vandalism to the mainspace would probably be my worst individual edits here (one such edit, from October 2021, is here). I've found that I have been more prone to making these sorts of errors when I've been trying to rapidly deal with vandalism reversion, particularly so when using keybinds on Huggle, and as such I decided to stop using Huggle back in March 2022. Now, when I do general antivandalsim patrolling, I use Twinkle and other anti-vandalism tools that have slower, click-based interfaces that require me to spend more time per edit; I think that slowing down when doing this sort of thing substantially reduced my error rate. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from Mx. Granger

17. What are your thoughts on Wikipedia's systemic bias?

A:

Optional questions from GhostOfDanGurney

18. Given your username history and your position at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor-attracted person (2nd nomination), where you !supported a redirect at Minor-attracted person, therefore preserving article history (which ended with a WP:SNOW consensus to delete salt it due to WP:CHILDPROTECT issues), how do you intend to balance WP:NOTCENSORED with WP:CHILDPROTECT as an admin?

A:

19. At what point do you feel that bypassing a prescribed resolution venue such as WP:DRV in order to go to the so-called "drama boards" at WP:AN/WP:ANI is appropriate?

A:

Optional question from JPxG

20. You see the following usernames in the user creation log. All have made three edits. What do you do, if anything, with respect to each?

• 1: User:I LOVE BEING RACIST!!! (all 3 edits are to insert ethnic slurs into articles)
• 2: User:Naturelover1973 (first edit was to fix a spelling error in an article about a bird species, second was to capitalize a parameter in an infobox which made it display improperly, third edit was to open a Teahouse thread titled "Help I think I broke the article!")
• 3: User:I F*CKING LOVE BEING RACIST!!! (all 3 edits are to insert ethnic slurs into articles)
• 5: User:I F*CKING LOVE BEING RACIST!!! AND VANDALIZING WIKIPEDIA!!! (all 3 edits are to insert ethnic slurs into articles)

A:

Optional question from User:NotAGenious

21. Did you use artificial intelligence to assist in writing your response to question 8?

A:

Discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. As nom obviously. -- Amanda (she/her) 00:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Per noms — Wug·a·po·des 00:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Yes. The Night Watch (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Without a shadow of a doubt. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Support, nothing but good interactions with this editor. BD2412 T 00:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
6. Support, of course. Skilled, competent editor. 🎄Cremastra 🎄 (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
7. Support. Doesn't seem to be any issues. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
8. (edit conflict)Support: Among the greatest content contributors to this project. I've found myself both agreeing and disagreeing with this editor at times, but never have I found their reasoning, knowledge, or patience wanting. I look forward to seeing them as an admin. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
9. Support - Absolutely! Bringingthewood (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
10. Support. Great admin candidate who will bring a lot to the copyright area, where help is sorely needed. /wiae /tlk 01:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
11. Support, of course! I've seen them around in copyright-related areas on Wikipedia and don't see any issues. ~ Tails Wx 01:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
12. Support No concerns Lightoil (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
13. Support We have been waiting for this forever. Highly competent editor and knows their stuff. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 01:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
14. Strong support. Hell yeah. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 01:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
15. One of the easiest supports I've ever made. Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 01:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
16. Support for someone who I thought was already an admin! Bsoyka (t • c • g) 01:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
17. Absolutely. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
18. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 01:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
19. Support Yes. I continue to think almost every non-admin EFM is fully qualified to be an admin. Galobtter (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
20. Support with no concerns. -- ferret (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
21. Very positive impressions of a thoughtful, considered, and erudite editor. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
22. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
23. Strong support - enormous amount of experience, pawsome skills in both dealing with problems and systemic biases (very relevant issue on Wikipedia), and hawks are cool! Brat Forelli🦊 01:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
24. Support Wait, I legitimately had no idea they weren't an admin. Of course they should get the mop! Generalissima (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
25. Support - Thank you for volunteering. I've been seeing them around and there were no concerns. We need more admins in the areas of interest to the candidate, such as image issues - which is confusing to alot of editors. That they are an admin on Commons and would be fluent in image use, licensing and copyright matters is a real plus! Netherzone (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
26. Support Trusted editor, already sysop on another project and also has done plenty of great work here on enwiki. Prodraxis _(talk) 01:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
27. Havent always agreed with their position but have always respected their views and how they presented them nableezy - 01:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
28. Support. Banks Irk (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
29. Support Mach61 (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
30. Support. Yes, yes, yes! 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 01:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
31. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 01:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
32. Support – An experienced, competent person on Wikipedia who helps out greatly with many areas of editing and would be a highly beneficial administrator. Also a good admin on Commons. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 01:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
33. Support: Hell yeah. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
34. Support - Review shows no concerns. - Aoidh (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
35. Support Legoktm (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
36. Support – incredibly happy to see this :) I know you'll do great. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
37. Support :D Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 02:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
38. Support: No red flags. Also more copyright experience in the admin corps can't hurt. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
39. Support - Nothing in the opposes convinces me not to support. Seddon ^talk 02:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
40. Support It is about time. Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

    I feel that I have to speak up about the minor-attracted person thing. First of all, RTH was the person who nominated the redirect for deletion the first time, citing concerns about WP:CHILDPROTECT. I also feel the need to say that 22spears was not the person who created the page. It was someone else who also intended for it to redirect to Chronophilia, but I don't want to name them. In fact, they are an administrator who has made some of the best blocks related to WP:CHILDPROTECT I have ever seen. I respect them for that. So it's obvious that they don't like pedophiles. The evidence I have gives me no reason to believe that RTH will be any different. Scorpions1325 (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

41. Stephen 02:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
42. Glad to see more candidates willing to take more tasks around here including a 'red-tailed hawk'. This finna be good. Best wishes. Volten001 ^☎ 02:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
43. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
44. Support. Great editor, no red flags even if they are red-tailed. Nice to see that vacation time has spurred a few extra RfAs before the new year. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
45. Support. Trusted, competent and friendly. We definitely need them as an admin. – bradv 03:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
46. I'm supposed to be on a wikibreak right now, but I feel compelled to make an exception for this. I've seen Red-tailed hawk do a lot of good copyright work and we need all the help there that we can get. They seem to have done plenty of good work elsewhere throughout the project, and I haven't seen anything that makes me worry about their suitability for the mop. — Callitropsis🌲[formerly SamX · talk · contribs] 03:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
47. Sure. Why not? Best, Reading Beans (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
48. Of course - highly trusted and experienced. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 04:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
49. Of course. HouseBlaster^talk 04:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
50. Strong support: Red-tailed hawk is, to use the technical term, ridiculously overqualified. He's got bona fides in content creation, text and media copyright administration, new page patrolling, edit filter management, and user conduct; plus, y'know, he's had sysop rights on two different wikis and counting. Wherever he sets his sights, it'll be a boon for the project :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
51. Support We are on a roll! Mox Eden (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
52. Support easy one — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
53. Support. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
54. Support – definitely qualified for the tools. –FlyingAce^✈hello 05:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
55. Support I've had many good interactions with this user and am glad they've decided to step up; am sure they will do well as an admin. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
56. Support. Red-tailed hawk is an exceptional editor who adheres closely to policy even when participating in challenging topic areas, which requires a stable temperament and a precise understanding of Wikipedia's expectations for both content and conduct. The candidate has improved the reliability of numerous articles by researching and citing high-quality academic sources that were otherwise overlooked. Allowing Red-tailed hawk to use their strong communication skills in an administrative capacity would be a net benefit for Wikipedia, should they choose to resolve copyright violations, respond to vandalism, or handle other disputes or backlogs. — Newslinger talk 05:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
57. Support with much wailing and gnashing of teeth. I wanted another candidate to complain about and say he never edits plant articles and what do I find in his history? Thirty edits to Agriculture in Ireland! I wanted to invoke the spirit of 🌻El Seed, Self-proclaimed Liberator of the Plant World! And what do I get from this bird boy? He's too friendly to plants for me to destroy. What is this Wikipedia coming to, I ask? Are the editing of plants going to become popular? What will happen to my shtick then? ;) Also the mass of good work in general, if I'm going to take this seriously. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
58. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
59. Red-tailed hawk and I have disagreed in almost every discussion we've both participated in. He's disagreed with a number of my closes and admin actions. In many ways we have fundamentally opposing views of how Wikipedia should work: He favors bureaucracy in cases where I favor common sense, and somehow also the other way around. And yet I have never once seen him act in the interest of some ulterior motive, or disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, or do anything other than work to make the encyclopedia a better place for our editors and readers. I've also never seen him personalize anything: We've had long pleasant discussions while simultaneously arguing at a noticeboard. I often disagree with his logic, but I always agree with his values, the values we need in an administrator. He takes on feedback, avoids making the same mistake twice, and is unlikely to be desysopped for avoiding accountability. He was also great to work with on Driving in Madagascar. Hey, let's get around to writing Friendship of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia sometime, okay? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 05:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
60. Support Hameltion (talk | contribs) 05:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
61. Support I thought you were an admin already! sawyer * he/they * talk 05:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
62. Lots of obviously useful contributions across the project, and I appreciate the well-reasoned noms and supports. Time to give this bird more buttons, I guess. Thanks for volunteering. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
63. Support although I have sometimes disagreed with Red-Tailed Hawk, I have found them to be an editor who cares about policy and sound logic, and will learn. Therefore, I am here. Andre🚐 06:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
64. Support I am so excited to see this nomination! Great net positive, hard worker, great contributor. 11/10. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
65. Trusted user, no issues. Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 07:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
66. Support, happily. I trust Red-tailed hawk's judgment. DFlhb (talk) 07:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
67. Support I've seen Red-tailed hawk's work on Copyright and edit filters and I believe they have the skills, knowledge and experience to make good use of the tools. Nobody (talk) 07:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
68. Support, I have seen the user around.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
69. Support a very good editor! – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 08:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
70. Support – robertsky (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
71. Support Wait, you aren't already? –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 08:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
72. Support I've had nothing but good interactions and things to say about RTH :D Justiyaya 08:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
73. Support I've seen them as being nothing but helpful and competent. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
74. Support. Qualfied and sensible. I looked into the alleged temperament issues, and all I see is a 2021 (fairly long time ago) comment that threw around too many terms like "boomerang" when a response that hot wasn't really required. Another opposer suggested some kind of smoking-gun user-talk interaction, but it was civil and well-explained even if that person didn't get the answer they were wanting. A questionable non-admin closure that was later overturned is par for the course for anyone doing a lot of closures; in isolation, it is not an issue, and it does not represent a pattern. Anyway, the answers to the quetsions so far have been satisfactory to me, and the editor's general activity, behavior, contribution level, and so forth suit my loose admin candidate criteria.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:11, 29 December
75. Support—Strongly. I think Red-tailed hawk will do a fantastic job as an administrator. Kurtis ^(talk) 09:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
76. Support. Another mop qualified user! Ngl, I really thought Red tailed hawk was already an admin already. Good luck and Happy New Year! 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 09:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
77. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 10:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
78. Support ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 10:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
79. Easy. Of the two current supports opposes, one is almost meaningless to me (though not to others, i understand), as i have never until i came across this RfA's Q5 and the subsequent oppose seen or heard that particular pun, and the second oppose merely seems petty, though i hold the opposer in high regard as an editor. Thus, opposes disposed of, the candidate meets my criteria, the noms' statements are full and complete, and i recall seeing the candidate many times and have no worries from their previous behaviour. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 11:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

    @LindsayH I assume you mean “Of the two current opposes…” - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

    Thank you for being gentle as you pointed out my bizarre error :) Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 13:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

    No worries. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 14:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

80. Red-tailed hawk will be a good addition to the admin team. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 11:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
81. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
82. Support: good temperament in heated situations, content creation skills and a deep knowledge of technical areas and policy/guidelines/ArbCom. Lightburst gives a September 2022 diff that shows the candidate's good temperament and attempts to de-escalate and discuss wherever possible. I've seen Driving in Madagascar before and been impressed! — Bilorv (talk) 12:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
83. Support and good luck Red. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
84. (edit conflict) Support I've seen the candidate around plenty, especially on WP:ERRORS and WP:RM, and they have shown good judgement and civility. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 12:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
85. Support No concerns. Intothatdarkness 13:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
86. Support Great candidate as an EFM, will be a net positive to the project. No issues worry me, including the ones raised by the opposers. Timothytyy (talk) 13:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
87. Support- Per all above. A net plus to the project. No concerns at all from me.   Aloha27  talk  13:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
88. Support Net positive, best wishes Josey Wales ^Parley 14:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
89. Support I thought RTH was already an admin. No concerns and enthusiatic support. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 14:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
90. Support. With a strong and diverse base of knowledge and experience, RTH would be a clear benefit to the admin corps. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
91. Support - Meets my criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThadeusOfNazereth (talk • contribs) 15:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
92. Support. I have seen the user around and don't have any major concerns. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
93. Support. Jaireeodell (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
94. Support Of course. RTH is not just someone who is knowledgeable only, but friendly and helpful as well They'd be a very good addition to the admin team. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
95. Support: per noms. My most brief of concerns are covered, and mitigated, by Tamzin above. Best of luck — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 17:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
96. Support no concern about their ability to be an admin. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
97. Support jengod (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
98. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 18:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
99. Support --Vacant0 (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
100. Support. ––FormalDude (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
101. Support. Easily! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

     Alright, now I have a bit of time to write it, here's a proper support.
     Red-tailed is easily one of the most kind, insightful, and polite editors I have ever had the chance to interact with extensively. Very few users compare in this regard. He's the exact type of admin I think works perfectly for this project. His compassion, patience, and diplomacy are practically limitless.
     Sincerely, Red-tailed is an absolute joy to work with in absolutely any endeavour. He has an amazing ability to lift up the people around him and make them want to be better editors. I know that's at least how I feel every time I speak to him off-wiki. If I was half the editor he is, then I wouldn't even hesitate to run for RFA.
     Red-tailed hawk is an amazing person and will make an even more amazing admin. There's no doubt in my mind about that! I am incredibly grateful to call him my friend. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

102. Support. Excellent answers above, no red flags I can see. - SchroCat (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
103. Support -- Euryalus (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
104. Support – Net positive. In answer to one of the oppose votes, I did a brief review of this editor's comments at AN and ANI. I did not see anything that caused me concern. As it happens, one of the threads from 2022 includes a brief comment by me, so theoretically I ought to remember it. Everything that Red-tailed hawk said in that thread appears reasonable and on-point. It shows he can thread his way through a confusing policy area and arrive at a sensible answer. The proposal he made there for widening the WP:UYGHUR sanctions was adopted. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
105. Frostly (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
106. Rcsprinter123 (commune) 19:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
107. If I have to continually remind myself that a user is not an administrator, as I have done with RTH, then that is generally a good sign. It is also a good sign when I edit-conflict with another supporter in clicking "submit" :D --Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
108. Support. Will elucidate as I feel bad for not elucidating on a withdrawn RFA recently. I'm swayed by User:Newslinger and User:Tamzin, who both make strong cases. I'm also willing to follow User:BD2412 whose judgement I have learnt to trust over the years. I also have an essay at User:Hiding/Admin standards which sums up my thoughts on how to be an admin, and if it's outdated I hope it's of value in explaining why i support if it comes down to a 'crat counting the numbers. [edited 17:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)] Hiding T 20:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
109. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
110. Strong support. Red has been a friend for a good while, and I strongly feel he is the right person out of anyone to wield a mop. His work on Commons is great, and his work here is awesome. I miss his old username, though! SWinxy (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
111. Support - My only non-concern has been immaturity from time to time but other than that I see no red flags here, Certainly a net positive, Easy support. –Davey2010^Talk 20:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
112. Support Mujinga (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
113. Support. Per the noms, per EdJohnston, and especially per RTH's enjoyment of the project. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
114. Support Has a clue. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
115. Support. Good candidate! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
116. Support. Good candidate. Just a random Wikipedian^(talk) 00:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
117. Support Leijurv (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
118. Support. ✗plicit 01:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
119. No reason not to. BilledMammal (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
120. Support Edit filter work is a big plus personally, and having looked through the opposition, I don't see anything significant enough to be a reason to oppose. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 05:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
121. not jerk has clue jp×g🗯️ 05:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
122. Support - One of the best editors on Wikipedia hands down. Exceptional judgement as a closer. Very smart. Good candidate. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
123. Support - JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 07:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
124. Support Only good interactions, kind and knows their policy. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
125. Support - I think RTH will make a useful addition to the admin corps. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
126. Their work on copyright—what I mainly know RTH from—has been great. Opposes don't convince me enough to move my vote from support. I'm confident they will use the tools for good. Chlod (say hi!) 13:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
127. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
128. Support. Zsinj^Talk 15:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
129. Support No red or yellow flags. Has a clue and an obvious net positive. The opposes are unpersuasive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
130. Support. I find his answer to the questions satisfactory, and a very smart editor, from what I can recount from previous encounters. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
131. Support - no concerns. I have considered the opposes carefully and none of them are convincing (and respectfully to Joe Roe, I don't see any issue with sensible non-admins being involved at ANI, in fact I think it's a good thing). GiantSnowman 16:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
132. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
133. Maliner (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
134. Support: no concerns; I find the opposes related to "being active at dramaboards" unreasonable. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 17:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
135. Support - My first reaction to seeing this nomination was "isn't RTH already an admin?" Fine editor and no red flags. Nemov (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
136. Support - A user I have seen for some time clearly has presence on the wiki which is important for functionaries and good decision making. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 18:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
137. Support Sensible and helpful. Opposes are unconvincing, especially the idea that participation at drama boards is disqualifying - I've seen other editors opposing RfAs based on not enough participation in problem resolution. Experience is good. Acroterion (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
138. Support From reading through the rfa page and the answer to my question, nothing bad really jumps out at me. blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 21:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
139. Support Clearly trustworthy and helpful Steven Walling • talk 21:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
140. Support. I was tremendously impressed by their communication ability in responding to the questions, and I feel positions of trust elsewhere on Wikipedia held without major controversy are a positive sign. So I started primed to support unless compelling reasons to oppose. I am a bit concerned by the dust-up alluded to by Brat Forelli's Q (though not keen on the political nature of the question) and by Shushugah's neutral. While not swayed by the specifics in Lightburst's oppose, I am also a bit concerned by the broader pattern around it mentioned by Joe. Nevertheless, I continue to support and hope RTH will spend more time uncontroversially mopping and thoughtfully discussing than finding fault and dispensing judgment. Martinp (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
141. Support. Whyever not? Maproom (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
142. Support Very impressed by their answers. I did not study regarding the oppose comments that they have been active and harsh at the drama-boards, but if in doubt, it would be good to defer being an active admin on sanctioning until later. North8000 (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
143. Support. Good noms, trusted with the tools on Commons, not noticed them either here or on Commons, that works for me. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
144. Support No real concerns. I would have liked to see a more succesful attempt at FA writing, but the candidate appears to have learned valuable lessons. In particular, the responsibility that administrators have to the community that they serve. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
145. Support Partofthemachine (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
146. Support Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
147. Support Red-tailed hawk is supremely helpful (and friendly!) both onwiki and on Discord! What a great communicator and diligent volunteer. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 04:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
148. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
149. Support per Shushugah's neutral vote. Anyone who has the courage to take that bold a stance publicly on Wikipedia in the charged environment of RfA knowing that they'd likely do an RfA themselves one day (let's not kid ourselves, people think about it for a while) will be an excellent administrator. In other words, administrators with the moral courage to realize NPOV does not require us treating objective moral evil as anything less than what it is are a positive. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

     Kind of WP:POINTY Tony. Everyone knows history is written by the winners. Shushugah is entitled to an opinion. Lightburst (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

     It is incorrect to state that history is invariably written by the winners. A well-known counter example is the United States, where much of the history of the War of the Rebellion was written by southerners. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

     Entitlement to an opinion does not deprive others from their entitlement to disagree with it, find it morally misguided, and argue against it. People are entitled to think that on a project devoted to the exchange of free knowledge that users should be allowed to express their sympathy for the secret police of totalitarian states. I am entitled to say that's antithetical to everything Wikipedia stands for and that I'm glad the candidate is has a spine and is willing to take a stand agains such views. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

     You're trying to reframe a merit-based discussion about an online administrative role into morality-focused horse manure. Why so? Why not taking all this virtue signalling elsewhere? — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

150. Support Why not? -Fastily 10:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
151. Support I've noticed this user doing some really great stuff! – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
152. Support Good candidate — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 14:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
153. Support Joyous! Noise! 17:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
154. support--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
155. Support Kablammo (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
156. Support - I am and was satisfied with Red-tailed hawk as an editor, and I see that there are benefits in the copyright enforcement area to having Commons-ENWP admins, and RTH should be the next Commons-ENWP admin. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
157. Oppose Support they're good, too good. Jokes aside RTH is a pleasure to edit alongside and I have full trust in them. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (he|she|they) 21:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
158. Support Let a name like this strike fear into vandals, as they scutter rodent-like hoping to hide in the dense weeds of the fields of discourse on the English Wikipedia, only for Red-tailed Hawk to swoop down without warning from a distant treetop (or telephone pole), having seen them all the time, just waiting for the right moment to strike. Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
159. Support I'm back from vacation and have given this RfA enough time to develop. I've seen RTH around and he's shown himself to be competent and helpful. While the arguments of the opposition may have merit, I believe that RTH would do more good than harm as an admin and I would be happy to support his endeavor. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 05:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
160. Support No reason to believe RTH would be a net negative to the project as an admin. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 06:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
161. Support Seen them very frequently in discussions offering valuable insights. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
162. Definitely, everything I have seen from them has been good. --Ferien (talk) 13:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
163. Support seems qualified. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

     Adding on to this a bit, I have been impressed with RTH's communication, arguably the single most important quality in an administrator. I also think their content work, on a glance, is enough to show that they understand how to write content-- pretty important to me in an administrator. Thoughtful answers to the questions suggest someone who is ready for the tools. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

164. Support per ferret. – SJ  18:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
165. Strong abstain (support fr fr): I low-key assumed that they were already an administrator but.. definitely qualified, good answers, actual need for tools, etc. and most of the oppose votes (not all, no disrespect to some opposers who have fairly justified reasons) are braindead. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 23:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
166. Support. Red-tailed hawk is an experienced user and their answers to the adminship questions have been sensible and detailed. No concerns. That Tired Tarantula (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
167. Support. I have carefully studied the objections below, but I am still of the opinion that he will make a good admin. Bduke (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
168. Support. I've seen the candidate around quite a bit, and I was pretty much ready to support as soon as I saw this RfA open. Since then, I've tried to look carefully at each of the issues that have been raised during this discussion, including going back through several of the content disputes, and I've decided that there is nothing that bothers me. I see thoughtful reasons for how to use the tools, and intelligent answers to questions. This is someone I can happily trust with the mop. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
169. Support I thought that red-tailed hawk was an administrator before. The person who loves reading (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
170. Support Read their Driving in Madagascar GA after watching The Grand Tour where Richard Hammond put tank treads on his SUV to get through the country. Understanding content creation is a good skill for admins and editors in general, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
171. Support Positive attitude, good editor. Hawk will be a great admin methinks. Curbon7 (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
172. Support I trust Red-tailed hawk implicitly on copyright matters. Working eith him at Copyright problms as clerks has been enough proof for me that he has competence, but also the ability to step back and ask for second opinions, or even leave the task be for others to work on if he does not know how to resolve an issue. His listings, although some of the most complex, are rarely false positives or without merit. He is receptive to feedback in my experiences, and I have faith that the qualities I've seen will carry elsewhere. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
173. Support No big deal. Garion96 (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
174. Support, no reason to think they'd abuse the tools. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
175. Support - No concerns here. -- Dane ^talk 19:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
176. With pleasure. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
177. Wizardman 00:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
178. Support I have seen Red-tailed hawk around. I trust that they will internalize the criticism from the oppose rationales. I also trust that they will communicate better and spend less time on the drama boards. Bruxton (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
179. Support Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
180. Support. We're lucky to have RTH, and he'll be more of an asset to the project with a couple extra buttons. He's already been extend a few measures of trust by us and our sister projects, and he's proven the trust to be well-placed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
181. Support Definitely a net positive to the project. While the Opposes may correctly note his penchant for the drama boards, sometimes we need someone who is able to navigate that treacherous waters instead of someone who stays out of the murky waters of the drama boards. His experience to close contentious RFC is also noted and greatly appreciated. Being an admin should be easy - getting too laser-focused on each and every actions would deter anyone from being an admin. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 08:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
182. Support. Good answer to Q14. (I think that declining to answer Q9 and Q17 is quite appropriate; those aren't really in scope for an RfA and seem to be rather "gotcha" questions.) Some of the concerns raised in opposes are at least somewhat valid, but they also seem to be one-offs rather than to indicate some ongoing pattern, and none of us could handle things optimally every single time, so that cannot be the expectation. Given that, I don't see any substantial concerns. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
183. Support - Great respect for the nom, I'll go with Amanda. - FlightTime (open channel) 11:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
184. Support I have seen them around answering false reports for edit filters and they seem competent and friendly. Nagol0929 (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
185. Support see no issues here ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 15:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
186. Apologies, this is a long one. tl;dr version - AGF, GTG, small caveat: please be cautious.

     This is the hardest RfA in which I have ever participated; I've sat on this for four days now and considered every possible type of contribution.

     I generally follow all the RfAs (or at least have done so for the last 3-4 years). Usually in an RfA where I am uncertain, I simply do not participate on the basis that this is the most fair approach, to both the candidate and the encyclopaedia. I take the view that unless I am familiar with the candidate or am prepared to spend time to investigate their work here, the best contribution I can make is to allow others to determine the outcome. That was the path that I had originally chosen here, but then the neutral vote from Shushugah and the oppose from Beccanyr struck me quite strongly. They are two editors whose work I am familiar with and editors who I consider to make valuable contributions. I do not think either of their contributions was made lightly or absent of due consideration. Their votes made me realise that I had actually come across the candidate much more frequently than I had realised, as Mhawk10 - mostly via AfD. I feel the issues raised in both their votes were not unreasonable and looking back at my experiences of RTH/MH10 there were certain resonances.

     In some of my experiences of MH10/RTH I feel their world-view overly influenced their interpretation of policy and guidelines. I found certain of their contributions related to political subjects were of a particular slant - they appeared to sometimes promote, for lack of a better term, an official US-state centric world-view. I'm providing two examples that caused me to pause in my consideration, there were others, but the point here is not to provide evidence *against*, but rather to illustrate what I would have hoped *for*:

     • their interventions at Radio Free Asia and its talk page, while, in my mind, correctly supporting the creation of a separate article dealing with the entity of the same name from the 1950s, which clearly was an organ of US intelligence, generally supported inclusion of material which highlighted RFA's "indepencence" while downplaying the effects of its links to the US government. Here I'm concerned not because I believe there's some equivalnce between RFERL/RFA and, for example, Russia Today (we absolutely should make qualitiative differences between state broadcasters) rather how MH10/RTH handled the dispute over inclusion of material in the lede qualifying RFA's independence - there was no sense of consensus building which in the case of a state broadcaster mandated under law to support US foreign policy would have been a more than reasonable approach.
     • "Far-right? Are you kidding me? That isn't remotely close to what the source says" - yet, the source actually indicates that the Chinese government considers the subject of the article, an employee of a US government funded organisation, to be far right. Here, I'm not so concerned with the removal of the far-right characterisation, but rather the uncivil manner and the somewhat misleading claim about the source in the edit summary.

     I have no concern with editors working in areas of their own interest and experience (I certaintly do), but the question is are we able to work in those areas consistent with the requirements of this encyclopaedia?

     We are all influenced by our own world-views and to varying extents we carry that worldview with us in the work we do here, especially when we interpret this encyclopaedia's policies and guildelines. Nevertheless, we all (I hope!) try to temper our world-view to the extent that produces collaboration within our agreed frameworks - but even in the best circumstances that still leaves a great deal of room for variety of interpretation. Still, all this must be weighed against the thousands of innoucous, good faith, day-in, day-out edits undertaken by MH10/RTH.

     Having encountered MH10/RTH mostly at AfD, I took a closer look at their stats which showed a noticeable change - 72.7% (Oct-Dec 2021) [1] and 85.5% ( Dec 2021 - July 2022) [2] with almost exclusively only deletion nominations However, since July 2023, a signifcant drop in deletion nomination only actions and a far greater alignment to community views (94.1%).

     I mentioned two contibutions initially struck me, but a third contribution here subsequently struck me further - the personal endorsement from Tamzin in their 2nd intervention. Their contribution made me reassess my own thoughts, especially making me recall how online personas can be markedly different from "reality", how online interactions can tend ad extremum. I think it is reasonable to see some of MH10/RTH's contributions in that light. However, we need to remember that the framing of our own views of another often occurs in a very narrow context and one needs to be highly mindful not to extrapolate an inability to be an effective admin on the basis of differences of opinion alone.

     So, I find myself here on the support side - tempering my own world-view, judging the candidate by their development and potential, reflecting upon the weight of support received and making a good faith assumption. I've not landed here completely without reservation and I hope the candidate in their future mop work takes on board what I see as a number of constructive comments. I'd opine that at this point a reluctance to wield the mop in the arena of US geo/politcs broadly defined might be appropriate.

     That said, a committment to assuming good faith really needs to mean something, it cannot be a slogan we wave around, applying at the most inconsequential moments (eg a talk page comment), rather it needs to be applied in those moments where high levels of trust are to be given. It's only in that way that we can expect that trust to be reciprocated and that we can build a culture of civility and constructive engagement during our disagreements. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

187. Support A little unresponsive to pings sometimes, but certainly not a reason not to support. Looks willing to participate in lengthy noticeboard discussions and hold their stance, which I respect 🙂 Johnson524 16:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
188. Support. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
189. Support No concerns ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 18:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
190. Support per nom.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 20:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
191. Support: No concerns. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
192. Support Im probably not the first to say that I already thought they were an admin...multiple times. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 21:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
193. As someone who contributes more at AN/ANI than is probably ideal, in perhaps snarkier than optimal ways, I am sympathetic to the thesis that it could be a bad idea to promote to admin someone who shares that flaw. However, I looked over my interactions with Red-tailed hawk in those venues (and elsewhere) and saw no hint of anything worrisome in how they conducted themself. --JBL (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
194. Support: I can't speak much to them on this project because I'm not here much anymore, but over on Commons whenever I see them they're making the situation better, not worse. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
195. Support – Muboshgu (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
196. Support - I don't think I ever interacted with RTH directly, but I've seen them around and I was a little surprised to learn that they aren't already an admin. Wikipedia is in dire need of admins right now, and from what I have seen, RTH is a prime candidate for the mop. - ZLEA _T\^C 05:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
197. Support Absolutely! Seawolf35 ^T--C 09:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
198. Support Per all above. Great candidate. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
199. Support. As deserves WP:200. Not without concern, the oppose votes make good points, RTH does sometimes go into disputes too hot. Shushugah's neutral & esp. Beccaynr's oppose is a good example. It's natural to sometimes feel annoyed at the positions others take on articles. And understandable to sometimes argue your case forcefully on article talk. But it's not collegial to argue about content in user space, esp. not once the other editor indicates they don't want such discussion on their talk. There's 3 reasons why I'm still supporting at regular strength. 1) While the concern about RTH supporting harsh sanctions is something to take seriously, I could find little evidence when sampling RTH's ANI contribs - more often I saw them arguing for leniency, and in some cases also showing an admirable willingness to change their mind when presented with superior arguments . Examples: 1 2 3. 2) The fact that folk who know the candidate well and presumably have different political views, like Tamzin & MJL, have came out to bat so strongly for him. 3) And mostly to counter the MAP thing. As per scorpion, it was RTH who first put the MAP article up for deletion.. As per JPxG's note at the bottom of this page, it's unclear the MAP page necessarily had contents that needed to be inaccessible from 'View History' While RTH voted redirect & the AFD closed as delete & salt, the MAP page was later turned back to redirect, as it is right now. It's understandable many get emotional over such issues, but among clear sighted people who prioritise childrens welfare over moral grandstanding, its a common view not to want to over stigmatise non-offending pedophiles - thus increasing the odds that they seek treatment for their condition, reducing the lieklyhood they'd harm children should they later experience a period of peak stress. This isn't to say delete & salt wasn't also a reasonable outcome, or that Beccaynr & Ghost are grandstanding in this RFA, but it does seem likely they've let their unpleasant content dispute with RTH colour their take on the issue. If anything, RTH seems to have done more than most to protect childrens interests, so good on the community for not casting a single extra oppose since the nonsense MAP attack was launched 3 days back. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
200. Support - FitIndia ^{Talk (Admin on Commons)} 19:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
201. Support - still remember the conversation I had with him on the Reliable Sources notice board. Very articulate and knowledgable on WP:RS policy. Would be a great asset as an admin --SpunkyGeek (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
202. Support - As I can see, Red-tailed hawk has done good work in the deletion and coyright administrative areas and has also written several good articles. Overall, I think they are a great editor who is very capable, competent, and suitable for becoming an administrator. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
203. Support - Thoughtful editor. No concerns. You have my support. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
204. Support -- No qualms on my end. -- Dolotta (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
205. Support - good range of experience. Blythwood (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
206. Support - Generally good editor who handles close discussions loquaciously. Some conern about the occasionally intemperate response, but there are decent admins who do the same. Well vetted. — Charles Stewart (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
207. Support - Qualified and generally appears competent. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose: I think RTH has temperament concerns. The editor has 521 edits to ANI and AN and often suggests harsh punishments. You can read their talk page to see some issues. Here is an interaction I had with them when they began edit warring with me in Sept 2022. A revert without discussion is jarring, and this editor reverted me twice with no discussion until I came to their talk page. I am not sure what this strange edit by RTH is but an IP reverted them. RTH is active at ANI and seems to shoot from the hip and they suggest harsh punishments. Here they are Closing an AfD but creating a badnac in the process which was sent to DRV by Sandstein – and overturned. RTH has five GAs and 21 DYKs so without temperament concerns I would likely vote to support. I think I am getting along fine with them now, but I have seen flashes of temperament issues and it worries me to give a lifetime appointment to someone who may not always be even-keeled and measured in their interactions. I am a longtime editor and RTH has not always treated me like one. Finally, question 5 is troubling: it is hard to imagine RTH’s parents naming a random hawk Mikehawk to make a joke of what sounds like “my cock”. It defies credulity. Lightburst (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

   I can only speak to the last of those, but the username concern wasn't just coming from nowhere. It came up during the discussion that resulted in Mhawk10 (at the time) being appointed an SPI clerk, and several functionaries expressed concern about it (being an oversighter, I had no part in it). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

   Lightburt, if we held everyone to such high standards there would be no administrators left. What matters is the percentage of bad to good contributions; if you don't make some errors over 27K edits you're doing something wrong. Mach61 (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

   Observing WP:COAL after my brain fart here - collapse

   Temperament - You can even see RTH taking a shot at an oppose voter in the Tails RFA just today. I don't love being in the same section as whatever Banks Irk was smoking. Thanks for the messages though. I will consider changing my vote over the next few days. Lightburst (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

   What??? That's not even the same editor. – bradv 05:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

   That remark was made by Trainsandotherthings, and not RTH; unless they are the same person and I'm missing something. Brat Forelli🦊 05:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

   As noted in Q5, I was the one who originally expressed a concern about Red-tailed hawk's old username. He was very new at the time—it was one of the first substantive messages that had ever been left on his talk. At the time, the line about his parents "defied credulity" to me too. But I've known him for several years since then, and have found him to be consistently one of the most honest and sincere people I've ever met. I asked him about a year ago, face to face, whether the line about his parents was true—and gave my word that I'd keep it in confidence if he said "no". He looked me in the eye and said that's really how it happened. I don't think he's capable of telling a lie to someone's face. Frankly, I don't think he's capable of telling a lie at all. I do think he's capable of not getting a dirty joke. He's that kind of guy, which I say in the nicest way possible. Mild-mannered and urbane, occasionally to a fault. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 05:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

   Thanks for the message. I think RTH edit warring with me after the sig was discussed on WO raised concern. I see another WO editor teed up a softball question as well. I have to pause because the candidate would rather take unilateral action than discuss. Lightburst (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

   I have no previous experience with RTH (and won't be voting in this RFA), but the 'strange edit' diff you posted caught my eye. A quick look at the history page shows that RTH's edit followed 7 disruptive IP edits. This one was a reversion, but all it did was restore the previous disruption. Looks to me like a quick attempt to resolve vandalism without paying close enough attention—not ideal, but not nearly as strange as it appears at first glance. Retswerb (talk) 07:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

   @Retswerb: It is clicking without thinking. Just like reverting me twice without bothering to discuss. Or shouting boomerang at literally dozens of editors who came to ANI for help. Not what I want in an admin, but I appreciate you pointing out the genesis of the hair-trigger edit. Lightburst (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

2. Strong oppose This editor is an automatic oppose from me due to an interaction on my talk page in November 2021 when they were Mikehawk10 [3]. The user wanted me to un-withdraw an AfD that had no chance of gaining consensus for delete on purely bureaucratic/procedural grounds, yet at the same time oddly threatening to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE at WP:AN (?!?) rather than do the normal thing for AfDs and go to WP:DRV, backing off when replied to by 力 [4]. This was a bizarre insistence on procedure which speaks to a lack of nuance that should be essential for all toolholders. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

   In your response to RTH's request to unwithdraw the AfD, you wrote: Oh, cut the crap, I can see in your edit history the real reason you're writing this.

   Can you say what this real reason was and what made you consider him dishonest back then? Brat Forelli🦊 06:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

   I believe it was due to his !support of "Naming Kelli Stavast" at Talk:Let's Go Brandon and of "Should Kelli Stavast be explicitly given the credit for coining the phase Let's Go Brandon?" at Talk:Kelli Stavast leading me to believe that he wanted me to reopen the AfD just to add to the pile of keep !votes (there were 9, to 1 stricken delete !vote). The dishonesty I felt coming from his purported reason being to allow further discussion based on an unstricken comment in the delete !vote.

   Reflecting back, this reply you highlight was a failure of WP:AGF on my part, and it's very, very likely that he genuinely simply wanted to reply (or allow replies) to that comment, but with 9 keep !votes already, really, what's the point in asking for a reopen? It's also odd that the diff from Talk:Kelli Stavast contains a comment from Metropolitan90 despite that user never posting in Talk:Kelli Stavast. Was this an accidental part of a paste that was overlooked? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  06:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

   I don't really understand how a single "bizarre instance" from 2 years ago speaks to his current editing & administrative capabilities, or how it's grounds for an !oppose, let alone a !strong oppose. He's got 27k edits on enwiki, and 57k globally; surely anyone with that much experience on this family of websites will make weird decisions sometimes. sawyer * he/they * talk 06:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

   I couldn't care less about a users global edit count if their personal interactions with me are 100% negative. I do not have trust in how this user would interact with me if given the ability to block me. Lightburst pointed out that this user has a tendency to suggest harsh punishments at ANI and threatening to go to AN over DRV I believe corroborates that. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  06:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Red-tailed hawk is extremely active at the dramaboards (359 edits to ANI and 162 to AN).[5][6][7] That's a red flag for me: as a non-admin he can't actually action anything there, and as far as I can tell he's never actually been involved in the dispute. He just offers commentary and unfortunately, like those above, I've noticed that he tends to focus on finding fault and calling for sanctions rather than de-escalation. I don't think that speaks to the kind of temperament we want in admins. If this RfA does succeed, I wish RTH luck in finding more sympathetic ears for his admin conduct than he has offered others. – Joe (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

   Oh and something I hadn't connected to RTH until I saw the discussion above about his old name: when I tried to talk to (then) Mikehawk10 about unsourced negative material he included alongside my real name in a Signpost article, he didn't even respond. Just got another editor to stonewall me on his behalf. Which is ironic, considering how often he drags admins over the coals at ANI for perceived accountability failures. – Joe (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

   Re: your indented comment, hopefully without coming off as badgering, and without judging this particular situation—speaking as a former Signpost editor-in-chief, I would have been happy when a writer handed off contentious correction request to me. Part of signing up to be the editor is a willingness to take on those discussions. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

   I enjoy the Signpost very much, but we should also acknowledge that at the end of the day it's a set of project pages, subject to the same policies as any other (like WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:BLPREMOVE), not an actual newspaper. I expect users to take responsibility for what they write, especially if it's about others, especially if it's contentious, and especially if they want to be an admin – not hand it off to someone else. – Joe (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

4. Oppose. Concerns about excessive interest in drama boards and punitive mentality. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Oppose Have drama and maturity concerns, although the candidate is a highly valued editor. Voting with regret as there is obviously a shortage of hard working admins, but worry re where they would focus use of the tools....ie blocking ex AN/I reports. Ceoil (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
6. Oppose - based on my experience with the candidate, my observations generally, and my review of their AfD history. My questions were an attempt to resolve some of these concerns, but the lack of response to Q14 (posted at 19:50, 30 December 2023 [8]) as of the posting of this oppose, and the response to Q15, have not provided reassurance. As further detail:

For me, the context of a discussion in November 2021 on my user talk page started by RTH (then known as Mikehawk10) was in the midst of a multi-faceted content dispute that I found stressful, and RTH engaged in a form of conduct I have rarely seen here, which is to split and repeat content discussions between article and user talk pages, despite repeated requests to stop. From my view, under the circumstances, and as to Q14 generally, it felt like repeated annoying and unwanted contact, but as a single episode of conduct, an admin response could be to tell an editor to "knock it off." As an editor who has only rarely seen this happen, the conduct stands out to me, and perhaps more so here with Q14 unanswered for as long as it has been, including because according to WP:ADMINACCT, Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct.

I was also aware of the discussion with Tamzin about the original username before this RfA; an editor learns their username can be recognized as "my cock ten" but declines to change the name until it risks interfering with their application to obtain further user rights. I am happy to assume RTH had no idea about the meaning when they first created the username - I also miss a lot of jokes - but the reluctance to adapt to the feedback after the meaning became known seems to me to be an example of poor judgment - not necessarily in a 'must change the username' way, but as a 'should change the username' unless they wish to adopt the lewd reference and potentially bring that into any interaction they have with other editors.

For Q15, I considered this an opportunity to reconsider some more recent AfD nominations and !votes. For example:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor-attracted person (2nd nomination) - this AfD WP:SNOW closed on 17 May 2023 as delete with the page title salted, with WP:CHILDPROTECT raised by the closer with regard to the development and content of the article. RTH !voted to blank-and-redirect, which would have preserved the history of the article. This is a past !vote I had hoped to have seen reconsidered in response to Q15.As noted below, RTH also wrote "or delete", which I missed, and I apologize for not making this clear at the outset.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mug shot of Donald Trump - nominated by RTH on 25 August 2023 shortly after article creation; I participated in this AfD, and relied on WP:RAPID as well as a wide range of sources to support my keep !vote; RTH followed up on the first SNOW closure on the closer's user talk page about why WP:NOPAGE arguments were excluded from the closing summary. After other editors joined the discussion, the AfD was reopened and then SNOW closed again on 26 August 2023. From my view, there are limited editor and admin resources available at AfD, and reconsidering both the nomination and the follow-up might have been a reasonable reflection to include in Q15 based on the outcome of the AfD.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Cooper (commentator) - this AfD closed on 6 May 2023 as no consensus without prejudice to a speedy renomination, after more than a month of discussion, and I have no objection to the closer's finding of legitimate disagreement about some of the media sources provided; I !voted to delete based on an analysis of sources and application of policy, and RTH !voted to keep, suggesting significant coverage existed and the article could be fixed. I am less concerned about this !vote, but it was memorable to me because of how constrained we can be according to various policies, including WP:BLP and WP:PROMO, from loading up a biographical article with promotional and/or negative content.

Overall, from my view, there is a collection of past and more recent conduct and judgment calls that lead me to oppose at this time. I think more experience demonstrated on this project may help resolve these concerns, particularly related to interactions with editors, responsiveness to feedback, and consideration of policies and guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC) expand, with apology Beccaynr (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC) updated to strike example Beccaynr (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to stop by and just leave some food for thought on this.

In regards to RTH not meeting WP:ADMINACCT, I think you focus too narrowly on the wording in that policy. The full sentence is Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards or during Arbitration Committee proceedings. The key here is that the qualifier here is about their "Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions". Your question, while referencing an actual incident in your oppose, asks a hypothetical question that doesn't bring into question RTH's conduct. It is normal for RfA candidates to consult their noms to help guide them through the hellhole that RfA can be. Yes, we all signed up for noming/running this RfA, but I think 48 hours leeway is fine to ask for over the holidays especially since the question wasn't about RTH's conduct. So I will just ask that you contemplate that, and where ever you land is fine with me, I just wanted food for thought on that. It might also be better have asked a question with your concern about his previous conduct so they could address what they have learned since November 2021.

In regards to the MAP AfD, I find it a little odd that we are applying OS level thought for an RfA. Child protection is a very serious topic, agreed, and frankly that is why it is a job given to oversighters, ArbCom, Stewards and the WMF to handle. From my experience being an oversighter, a fair number of admins we have on the books now can barely handle revdel assessments - if that, and much less an oversight assessment. Also throwing child protection in the middle of an RfA is going to raise a lot of eyebrows because it gets a lot of people worried fast, something I think we could have avoided in drama.

In regards to the Donald trump mug shot - RTH did nominate and did ask a clarifying question (per the ADMINACCT you link above) to understand why something wasn't talked about in a close. I've had many people do that to my closes - and even gotten in some boiling water over it. It was a reasonable question to ask, and if other people decided to re-open the DRV from there, that's on the admin who reopened and the remainder of people in the discussion, not RTH. Also RfA noms are really nice to look at hindsight 20:20 - but people don't always agree and that is where we have to consider walking in the shoes of others.

In regards to the Brett Cooper AfD you don't even seem to be critical of RTH on this and seem to just be making a generic observation about the community. At the end of the day people will disagree at AfD, and baring other policy issues, it's a healthy discussion, and certain people will land on certain sides like deletionist or inclusionist. What matters is that they showed they put thought and effort in line with the pillars of the community and contribute positively in a discussion.

All that said, I'm not here to change your vote by any means, again just give food for thought and I'll leave it there. If you want to dig deeper into RTH's conduct, especially more recent conduct in the remaining admin areas, I would encourage it. -- Amanda (she/her) 21:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

No comment on the substance of Beccaynr's oppose, but I second AmandaNP's remarks about revdel and OS—an alarming number of editors (including admins) don't seem to understand the criteria for revision deletion and suppression. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen pretty egregious stuff that didn't seem to be recognized by experienced editors as problematic, and I recall one incident in which a checkuser (!) reverted some edits that obviously contained PII, apparently without requesting suppression. These edits remained in the page's revision history until I requested suppression several months later. I encourage everyone reading this to review Wikipedia:Revision deletion and Wikipedia:Oversight—anecdotally, a lack of understanding of these policies among experienced editors seems to be an epidemic and has the potential to cause real-world harm. — Callitropsis🌲[formerly SamX · talk · contribs] 22:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To clarify a little bit, Q14 was designed to address a concern I had about a past incident and the general nature of the conduct, while considering whether and how I would participate in this discussion, e.g. would the answer be an example of the growth alluded to in your nomination statement. RTH had also already been directly asked about their conduct in Q5 and stated they should have taken Tamzin's advice without explaining why; it therefore seemed reasonable to try asking a question that started with the "why" and a potential to avoid drama. RTH also chose to run the RfA over the holidays and answered other questions instead of Q14, which wasn't designed to be particularly challenging, but yes, not only was it during the holidays, it was also an optional question; in the meantime, I explained my perspective on a past incident, and how it relates to my overall oppose vote, and RTH then responded to Q14.

With regard to the AfDs: in the MAP AfD, WP:CHILDPROTECT appears to be within the consideration of the admin closer and multiple AfD participants. According to the policy, it is a key issue, which is why I raised it. As to the mug shot and Cooper AfDs, these are less-serious judgment calls, and with the Cooper AfD, what was memorable was the idea that the article could be fixed with the available sources and in accordance with policies such as WP:NOT and WP:BLP - less of a concern, because of the wide range of opinions at AfD, but still a concern from my view with regard to consideration of policy. Beccaynr (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Thank you for volunteering. RHT's contributions and areas of interest are very generous and knowledgeable. Given my personal bias/stake I am reluctant to outright oppose but I found their McCarthyite answer here very worrisome for a Wikipedia that has an American worldview bias as is. In the event they do get the mop, I would hope they refrain from making future political judgment or standards that are not backed by Wikipedia policy. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

   Shushugah, would you mind striking your personal attack of calling someone a McCarthyite because they opposed you on the grounds that you were unable to say that a user with a userbox supporting the secret police of a brutal dictatorship was a morally bad thing and would be in appropriate on Wikipedia. Also, the implications of political bias in calling the secret police of a communist dictatorship that collapsed before many of our current users were born human rights violators stretches the outer edges of credulity. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

   @TonyBallioni Why misrepresenting the issue? Shushugah was not "unable" to condemn an editor, as you allege. Instead, Shushugah were clear that they did not view their role as an obligation to pass moral judgements on other editors, and instead preferred to focus on actual contributions. They were absolutely right in that, especially given that an attempt at being a moral police had almost wrecked another RfA. So, if you want to discuss that other RfA – in which you did not take part – perhaps strike this PA and start the discussion on Shushugah's usertalk? — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

   No misrepresentation at all and no virtue signaling like you claimed above, and no, there's no personal attack. I stand behind the principles of WP:NONAZIS, which I helped coauthor, that there are some beliefs that inherently incompatible with a project devoted to the free and open exchange of knowledge. And while that essay is focused on far-right extremists and neo-nazis, yes, the secret police of fallen communist regimes fall into the same category. So yeah, when someone makes comments on an RFA doubting the fitness of someone to be an admin because they don't think editors should be allowed to openly suppor the Stasi, it's a fair thing to point out how misguided the commentary is. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

   With due respect to whatever background in history you might have, but I fail to see any commonalities between the Nazi beliefs, which you listed extensively in your essay, and a state security agency whose original purpose was to dismantle Nazi power structures. If you think that Stasi policies were in any way aligned with any of the Nazi beliefs you listed, I'll ask you to provide good sourcing – strong enough to justify your criticism of an RfA candidate for not taking a political stance against Stasi based on your essay.

   I would expect that as a former admin you'd support the fact that Wikipedia is not censored and welcomes a variety of standpoints, including e.g. editors who support Donald Trump, Putin or Bush, those who deny the Armenian genocide, those who support Russian narrative in Ukraine or the US narrative in Iraq, those that take a nuanced stand on the politics of Iran, Belarus, Saudi Arabia, Israel and similar regimes, and so on. Shushugah's diplomatically-worded refusal to go into naïve political simplifications with regard to East Germany as you wanted them to, only attests to their maturity. And no, Wikipedia is not advocacy and I disagree that editors should be forced to speak against any country or its agencies, present or past, especially at their own RfA.

   Here, Shushugah refused to support an editor due to their conduct at an RfA, only to be called out by you for not taking a political stance. Are you sure you it is an encyclopaedia that you work to create? — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

   Neutral at this time. I have concerns at this time about whether there may be a conflict of time or conflict of attitude associated with being an administrator at Commons and an administrator at English Wikipedia. I may resolve these concerns next year. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

   For what it's worth, I compared the list of admins from enwiki and commons and found there's an overlap of 32 users. Your comment made me curious what kind of overlap there was and I thought I'd share the result. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

   Neutral for now, I'd like to see an answer to question 14 before deciding. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Moved to support.

2. Neutral I don't really have any strong feelings one way or another. Dr John Carter from ER (the TV show) (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Neutral I can't decide whether or not the concerns by Beccaynr are a showstopper. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
4. Neutral The issues brought up by the opposers have raised enough doubt for me to refrain from offering a support at this time.Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
5. Neutral, leaning oppose - I'm deeply concerned about the potential for drama from this candidate, especially considering the amount of barely-on-topic ANI commentary. The "wrong" AFD votes, on the other hand, don't particularly bother me—I never consider "wrong" AFD votes to be a significant issue since AFD is supposed to be a discussion building to a consensus where editors will have different opinions. This is especially true when, in the AFD I looked at (the pedo one), Red-tailed hawk had basically voted delete but in different words if you read past the bolded part. I am glad that the candidate took the suggestion from the SPI team to heart and changed his rather childish initial username. Because I am unwilling to oppose off something I can't put into quantifiable examples, I am voting neutral. That said, this RFA is obviously going to pass by a landslide, so I'd just like to recommend Red-tailed hawk always think about whether his comments as an ANI admin contribute p[ositively to the discussion or, as they say, generate more heat than light. If a comment isn't going to help bring about a productive result, even if it's not negative or hostile in any way, it's usually not helpful to post it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
6. I've been mulling this over all week. On the one hand, RTH could be just the kind of admin we need, getting stuck into backlogs and making lots of use of the tools. We couod do with a few more high-volume admins to increase the bus factor and I've seen nothing to suggest RTH would abuse the tools or make arbitrary actions. I do worry, as per Reaper above, about a propensity for drama from someone who spends a lot of time at the drama boards and whose comments there don't always seem to help progress things towards a resolution or deeper understanding. RTH, please consider that ANI is the second-most-edited page on the whole wiki and that admins in particular should approach discussions there cautiously and always aiming to get the best result for the least drama. I'm not quite a support but ultimately I'm not an oppose because you don't lack anything that can't be learnt on the job. Just please be willing to learn and listen and good luck. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
7. Neutral I'm coming down in this camp after watching this process all week myself. I'll grant the candidate has learned much and has demonstrated technical competence and a need for tools. I do not have much personal experience with the candidate but the numbers look fine. It's clear by now the candidate will sufficiently earn the community's trust to wield the mop. Good for Wikipedia, and I will abide by the community's call, work gladly with Red-tailed hawk, and look forward to helping welcome a new sysop. However, I'm not a huge fan of non-admins who spend lots of their time on ANI and AN, for reasons already discussed. (they are welcome to be there, but I am not required to enjoy everyone's wit) Likewise, I cannot dismiss from my memory the user's previous username, and that the user opted not to change the name until requesting additional permissions (processes which I followed in real time). In today's online culture, screen name Mikehawk10 screams disingenuousness and teen humor; a decision not to change it on first request tells me something about the character of the human behind the screen name. The given rationale for the original username seems so unlikely it taxes my willing belief. It's the clinging to this story I question. I believe an admin candidate should come clean when questioned and in this case I'm not satisfied. BusterD (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
8. Neutral and echoing Reaper Eternal. It's not because of the relatively minor weight of issues brought up by Joe, Lightburst, and others, but because those issues already form a pattern, which in my view may not allow, at least in medium term, to build trust in the candidate's decisions, instead leading to more drama. Simply, I am apprehensive that the described issues will keep popping up, even as the community will have much less ability to influence RTH's behaviour. While a neutral is most I can give at the moment, it's now evident that RTH will get the mop, and so my neutral nevertheless comes with best wishes. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

General comments

• I would recommend RTH not answer questions 9. Who should or shouldn't be an admin is a fair question at ACE, but has absolutely nothing to do with what an admin does. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, uh, are people allowed to just nakedly ask admin candidates what their politics opinions are? jp×g🗯️ 05:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  I agree Q9 shouldn't be asked, and yet RTH did precisely that on my RfA. The fact that we probably disagree as Tamzin mentioned, is not an issue, if anything that is an asset. But the political litmus test beyond Wikipedia policy shouldn't have a place here. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Doesn't look like there's much gain to be had from discussing this further :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
When asked "What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?" He responds "I think my best contributions to Wikipedia have been my GAs. I’ve had fun ... Driving in Madagascar stands out as one of the more pleasant experiences ... I’ve also enjoyed sending .... my favorite experience with this was expanding ..." We have a mission, and it's not about fun, it's about service.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC) The candidate clearly has no interest in fun as they voluntarily chained themselves to a mountaintop so the Caucasian Eagle could peck at their liver stood at RfA. — Bilorv (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC) What a disappointing view to espouse. Of course this project is about enjoyment. If it were solely about "service" to an unknown audience, it would be a bureaucratic hellscape focused solely on the most "important" subjects, and would have died in 2001 because we would've drowned ourselves debating exactly what those are. There would be no room for the charm and humanity of articles like pronunciation of GIF, chicken gun, or Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness debate, nor for the thousands of other Good and Featured articles about wide-ranging and unusual topics. There would be no room for my articles about fashion, and none for yours about obscure chemicals. The curiosity, joy, and humanity inherent to Wikipedia is what makes it one of the last best places on the internet, as described in a Wired article in 2020: "Wikipedia is built on the personal interests and idiosyncrasies of its contributors; in fact, without getting gooey, you could even say it is built on love." Criticizing an RfA candidate for enjoying his work on the project goes against the entire point of why we do what we do. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC) if someone's contributing constructively/helpfully then i'm more than glad that they're having fun. (almost) nobody's getting paid here; the wiki relies on volunteers editing out of interest, and enjoyment helps with this. i'd also argue someone having fun and interacting positively with other editors helps to promote a good atmosphere which at the very least won't turn new editors away and, at best, can be the main reason they decide to help out. if someone's having fun at the expense of the wiki - say, via vandalism - then yes, that should be discouraged. but if someone's enjoying themselves and actively helping, where's the issue? Remagoxer (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC) If you truly believe that, start an RfC to enshrine it at WP:NOT. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC) “Wikipedia editors cannot have fun” - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC) Scribbles furiously – Hey man im josh (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC) We should all be editing with a raining cloud over our heads IMO. ULPS (talk • contribs) 01:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC) Talk about having no snow and all clouds for all damn December. That's enough of a rain cloud for me... The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 16:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC) This comment isn't a neutral or an oppose, so I feel I am morally justified in contributing to the discussion merely to say I think it's bad. This is a bad comment. Like, it's not just a personal lack of jouissance, or an individual refusal to engage in humor -- that's none of my business, and you are free to do (or not do) what you want. But to speak out against other people having fun is pernicious. To speak out against people being allowed to be serious because they once elsewhere had fun in a way that didn't violate any rules is to look the project in the eye, stab it with a dagger, feel its blood ooze out around your hand and say "I know the single biggest issue facing you right now is the attrition of dedicated contributors and the extreme difficulty of attracting new ones but I don't care and I want to watch you die". Fun is serious business and people who refuse to take it seriously are a genuine threat to its continued survival. jp×g🗯️ 05:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC) I have to both agree and disagree. I strongly agree that work at Wikipedia should not be fun. I strongly disagree that it should be viewed as an act of service, as even that makes it seem too glamorous. True Wikipedians approach their time here as if it is cosmic punishment for earlier sins or transgressions in former lives. This candidates refusal to recognize—or perhaps timidity in fully acknowledging—that editing work needs to be shrouded in misery and conducted while weeping is fully disqualifying. He and all who have supported him should be blocked until they post a suitably despairing, despondent unblock request. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC) I strongly agree that work at Wikipedia should not be fun. Are you being sarcastic? If not, then, oops, I've been enjoying myself far too much. Better go do something really miserable, like reviewing 4-month old AfC submissions, instead of having "fun" doing minor fixes I enjoy. 🎄Cremastra 🎄 (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC) Cremastra - Why bother replying to people for whom you can't muster the effort to read their posts fully? You read only up to the quoted portion – stopping 18 words deep into a 105 word post and having read for about 4.5 seconds – and decided you had the whole content and context to reply. You can answer your own question by reading the remaining 87 words. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC) Hi, Peter from Family Guy here to help clear up some potential misconceptions here. There are actually two main paths to succeeding as a Wikipedia editor and not having fun -- the bodhisattva path and the arhat path. In the first, enlightened beings (called bodhisattvas) choose to not have fun out of compassion for all sentient beings. Instead of escaping the cycle of enjoyment, bodhisattvas vow to be reborn and continue to work for the enlightenment and liberation of all beings from laughing at jokes and/or having a good time. Contrariwise, the follower of the arhat path seeks personal enlightenment and aim to achieve enlightenment, escaping samsara permanently and achieving a state of nirvana, mostly through following the eightfold path (no fun allowed, no fun allowed, no fun allowed, no fun allowed, no fun allowed, no fun allowed, no fun allowed, and no fun allowed). It's important to note that one path is not "better" than the other, and different paths are suitable for different individuals, depending on their inclinations and circumstances. Different teachings and practices can lead to enlightenment and liberation, and each path has its own value and significance. Each path is respected within its own tradition, and is an equally valid route to the ultimate goal of not having fun. jp×g🗯️ 09:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC) I didn't know writing was supposed to be unpleasant and monotonous. I better go ahead and just quit; I think that all of us would be better doing the same. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 00:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC) I knew I shouldn’t’ve quit my day job. blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 00:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC) Pie Jesu Domine... <opens ANI> Dona eis requiem... <looks for any threads about "nationalistic edit warring"> Pie Jesu Domine... <offers to help> Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC) Forgive me, Father, for I have laughed. jp×g🗯️ 09:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC) Oh, if that is true, then maybe I should do less fun stuff like copyediting, and more emotionally-taxing stuff like reading the entirety of an ANI case! That is how you truly do Wikipedia! Mox Eden (talk) 04:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC) Honestly I like reading ani sometimes when I’m bored, but sometimes it gets too cringy/stressful and I have to skim to the next one. blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 13:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC) Woops, guess I'm retiring. Sorry guys, I only edit because I enjoy it. :( Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC) by making this comment you have attracted many, many replies, most of them jokes. and you know what jokes are? fun. urgh... this is a complete failure. the anti-fun cabal needs better strategies. ltbdl (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

---

• I'm curious about people who have opposed because of RTH's participation in administrator noticeboards. I have not had many interactions with RTH on AN(I) much, though EdJohnston's support above gave a convincing assessment of what RTH's comments at those noticeboards look like. If there is a pattern that suggests that the candidate often favors punitive actions, there should be a list of discussions where RTH was against consensus in suggesting a sanction. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

---

For the record, since some people have made reference to the discussion and outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor-attracted person (2nd nomination) -- I think there is some confusion here, perhaps enhanced by the fact that the article's deletion means that old revisions (i.e. the actual page being discussed at the AfD) cannot be viewed. It seems like the mention of WP:CHILDPROTECT in the closer's note has caused some to conclude that the article was saying it was good to have sex with children, or encouraging people to do so, et cetera. It may be noted here that the article's last revision, prior to its deletion, started out with this:

"Minor-attracted person"[note 1] (abbreviated to MAP; occasionally cartographer as a dog whistle[3]) is a controversial substitute term for pedophile associated with attempts at normalizing pedophilia.[4] It has been used by so-called anti–child sexual abuse organizations,[5][6] including the controversial organization B4U-ACT,[7] which has been linked to pro-pedophile apologia.[8][9]

jp×g🗯️ 00:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I strongly suggest checking out the ANI thread regarding this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1127#Link to personal blog of notorious pedophile Tom O'Carroll. The article was created by 22spears, an editor who was blocked for pushing a pro-pedophilia POV. The only appropriate outcome of that AfD was a hard deletion creation protection. I remain very concerned that Hawk has failed to mention this AfD and their !support of a history-retaining redirect over 48 hours after it has been brought up. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  04:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@GhostOfDanGurney: For the record, Red-tailed hawk's comment was Blank-and-redirect to Chronophilia#Chronophilias_related_to_minors per WP:DEL-REASON#5, or delete per the same. [emphasis added] It'd be misleading to imply he was against deletion; it just wasn't bolded.
There's also no evidence that Red-tail was even aware of the AN/I thread in question. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:53, 4 January 2024 (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 either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.