Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Red-tailed hawk
Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (88/2/0); 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, whichapplies 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)
- A: WP:ECR states that
Optional questions from SchroCat
- 1. Could you show what experience you have in resolving disputes between editors?
- A:
- 2. What did you learn from those experiences?
- 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
- As nom obviously. -- Amanda (she/her) 00:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Per noms — Wug·a·po·des 00:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. The Night Watch (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Without a shadow of a doubt. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support, nothing but good interactions with this editor. BD2412 T 00:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support, of course. Skilled, competent editor. 🎄Cremastra 🎄 (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Doesn't seem to be any issues. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- (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)
- Support - Absolutely! Bringingthewood (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Support No concerns Lightoil (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- Strong support. Hell yeah. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️⚧️) 01:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- One of the easiest supports I've ever made. Schminnte [talk to me] 01:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support for someone who I thought was already an admin! Bsoyka (t • c • g) 01:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Absolutely. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 01:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support with no concerns. -- ferret (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Very positive impressions of a thoughtful, considered, and erudite editor. J947 ‡ edits 01:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Havent always agreed with their position but have always respected their views and how they presented them nableezy - 01:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Banks Irk (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Mach61 (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Yes, yes, yes! 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 01:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 01:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support: Hell yeah. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support - Review shows no concerns. - Aoidh (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Legoktm (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support – incredibly happy to see this :) I know you'll do great. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support :D Vermont (🐿️—🏳️🌈) 02:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support: No red flags. Also more copyright experience in the admin corps can't hurt. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support - Nothing in the opposes convinces me not to support. Seddon talk 02:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support It is about time. Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Stephen 02:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support. Trusted, competent and friendly. We definitely need them as an admin. – bradv 03:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- Sure. Why not? Best, Reading Beans (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Of course - highly trusted and experienced. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 04:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Of course. HouseBlastertalk 04:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support We are on a roll! Mox Eden (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support easy one — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support – definitely qualified for the tools. –FlyingAce✈hello 05:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- * Pppery * it has begun... 05:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support Hameltion (talk | contribs) 05:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support I thought you were an admin already! sawyer * he/they * talk 05:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Trusted user, no issues. Toadette (Merry Christmas, and a happy new year) 07:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support, happily. I trust Red-tailed hawk's judgment. DFlhb (talk) 07:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support, I have seen the user around.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support a very good editor! – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 08:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support – robertsky (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Wait, you aren't already? –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 08:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support I've had nothing but good interactions and things to say about RTH :D Justiyaya 08:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support I've seen them as being nothing but helpful and competent. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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
- 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)
- 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)
- Tol (talk | contribs) @ 10:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support —a smart kitten[meow] 10:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Easy. Of the two current
supportsopposes, 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, ~ LindsayHello 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, ~ LindsayHello 13:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- No worries. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 14:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for being gentle as you pointed out my bizarre error :) Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 13:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- @LindsayH I assume you mean “Of the two current opposes…” - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Red-tailed hawk will be a good addition to the admin team. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 11:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support and good luck Red. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- (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)
- Support No concerns. Intothatdarkness 13:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support- Per all above. A net plus to the project. No concerns at all from me. Aloha27 talk 13:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Net positive, best wishes Josey Wales Parley 14:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
- 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)
- 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)
- In your response to RTH's request to unwithdraw the AfD, you wrote:
Neutral
General comments