Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Red-tailed hawk

Red-tailed hawk

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (137/3/2); Scheduled to end 00:45, 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 question 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:

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)
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)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. 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)

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 [1]. 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 [2]. 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).[3][4][5] 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)

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)
2. 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)

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)

• 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)