if nominations haven't updated. |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Red-tailed hawk | 207 | 6 | 8 | 97 | Successful | 03:06, 5 January 2024 | 0 hours | no | report |
Robertsky | 196 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Successful | 05:32, 3 January 2024 | 0 hours | no | report |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Red-tailed hawk | 207 | 6 | 8 | 97 | Successful | 03:06, 5 January 2024 | 0 hours | no | report |
Robertsky | 196 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Successful | 05:32, 3 January 2024 | 0 hours | no | report |
Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.
This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.
If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.
There is an experimental process that you may choose to use to become an administrator instead of this process, called administrator elections. Details are still being worked out, but it is approved for one trial run which will likely take place in 2024.
About administrators
The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.
About RfA
Candidate | Type | Result | Date of close | Tally | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S | O | N | % | ||||
Pickersgill-Cunliffe | RfA | Successful | 15 Jun 2024 | 201 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
Elli | RfA | Successful | 7 Jun 2024 | 207 | 6 | 3 | 97 |
DreamRimmer | RfA | Withdrawn by candidate | 31 May 2024 | 45 | 43 | 14 | 51 |
Numberguy6 | RfA | Closed per WP:SNOW | 27 May 2024 | 5 | 23 | 2 | 18 |
ToadetteEdit | RfA | Closed per WP:NOTNOW | 30 Apr 2024 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.
Nomination standards
The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).[1] However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
Nominations
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
Notice of RfA
Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}}
on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en
.
Expressing opinions
All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account[2] and only after the RfA has been open for 48 hours.[3]
If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".
There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.
The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.
Discussion, decision, and closing procedures
Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.
In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.[4] In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.
In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".[5] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.
If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.
Current nominations for adminship
if nominations have not updated.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Red-tailed hawk
Final (207/6/8); closed as successful by SilkTork (talk) at 03:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Nomination
Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs) – I met Red-tailed hawk on meta just over a year ago when they sought the tools to help another wiki address copyright issues. I did not think our interaction would grow as much as it did in a year. From when they turned my first skepticism in my first interaction to the conversations we have today – it’s one of the fastest growth paths I’ve seen both individually and as a contributor.
That’s not to say it was without growing pains; there were some, as we’d expect, with every contributor becoming more than themselves. We've had very productive but intellectually stimulating discussions which have actually made me pause and think. We don’t always agree, but we can both see each other’s viewpoint and respect it. Several discussions have involved complicated or sensitive matters, whether oversight or CU interactions, dealing with LTAs via edit filters, or how to assist other editors in growing. Red-tailed hawk has definitely shown the need-to-know background thought process that we expect each admin to have and exercise.
To speak to more of Red-tailed hawk’s work, they are a 27k edit contributor over three years. They have held the requisite non-admin tools, returned them if not using them, and even stepped up to one of the most complicated tasks of edit filter. They have also taken on other roles, such as commons admin and Steward clerk, while keeping pace better than I can with all that goes on.
With that, it is my pleasure to nominate Red-tailed hawk for adminship, and I hope you will have them as a solid addition to our administrator corps. -- Amanda (she/her) 00:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Co-nomination statement
- 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
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
- A: From these experiences, I've learned several lessons:
Optional question from Brat Forelli
- 9. Hawk, though I currently support your nomination, I found this statement from you very alarming. I find it very hostile to socialist and communist-minded Wikipedians out there. In case of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, both sides can be deemed brutal in regards to civilians, yet it does not make supporting either side morally unthinkable or disqualifying for an admin. Do you believe that supporting Stasi or the Warsaw Pact regimes is disqualifying for an admin or otherwise impermissible?
- A:
Optional question from Gog the Mild
- 10. What, if anything, did you learn from the process of nominating Driving in Madagascar for FA?
- A: I learned primarily how hard it is to get an article to FA, and how much work that editors who are regular FA writers put in to get their articles to that status. I am truly in awe of contributors here who are content machines—TonyTheTiger and Sammi Brie for instance—and I wish that I had their energy and drive when it comes to writing voluminous amounts of quality content. But I'm not them, and I don't have their abilities in the content sphere. Being my first time nominating an article for FA, I should have waited for my co-author to be fully available before I submitted that nomination so that we could handle the task together and so that it would be more likely that we could do the work to bring the article to FA. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Optional questions from Robert McClenon
- 11. What exactly are the responsibilities of an administrator on Commons?
- A: The primary role of an administrator on Wikimedia Commons is to perform certain maintenance tasks that can only be handled by trusted users. From a technical standpoint, these tasks include page and file (un)deletions, revision deletions, blocks, page protections, edit filter management, and the provisioning of certain user rights, among other less common items. Administrators are also generally responsible for closing certain discussions, such as deletion requests, and maintaining some pages that are part of the bot-assisted/automated copyright and anti-spam systems (such as the Questionable Flickr images master list and the local spam blacklist). A fuller summary of the things an administrator can do on Commons can be found at c:Commons:Administrators and c:Commons:Guide to adminship. As for myself, I've spent most of my admin time on Commons taking actions in the copyright realm, such as by reviewing requests for speedy deletion, closing deletion requests, and to a lesser extent handling undeletion requests, though I also spent some time over the summer working on addressing disruption caused by sockpuppeteers. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- 12. Can you envision any ways that being an administrator on both Commons and the English Wikipedia could either be beneficial to your service as an English Wikipedia administrator, or cause a conflict of focus?
- A: There's a good bit of synergy that comes from being an admin on Commons as well as an admin on Wikipedia, with some of the more obvious benefits coming in the copyright and anti-spam scopes. With respect to copyright, aside from the image copyright experience gained as a Commons admin, the experience would most directly translates to handling image copyrights here as well as knowing when to move files to Commons and delete the local version as opposed to simply keeping the file local. With respect to anti-spam, the sorts of low-quality pages that might get deleted per G11 here may well carry spammy images that get tagged on Commons advertising or Personal photos by non-contributors—being able to handle both places affected by the same disruption saves others' time and can address issues quicker. There's also some synergy when it comes to taking action on cross-wiki sockpuppetry. I don't expect this will be a substantial part of my time as an admin on the English Wikipedia, but I will note for your consideration an example where I discovered an active EnWiki sockpuppet of a indef'd master only after I noticed the sock's interactions with particular images uploaded by the master that I had encountered on Commons while patrolling for copyright violations.More importantly than any task-specific synergy, though, I think the experience of being an admin on Commons has helped me more deeply understand the responsibility that administrators have to the community that they serve. On Commons, administrators are always required to provide explanations of administrative actions, and we are expected to adhere to policies and, where appropriate, to community consensus. We can even be held directly accountable to the Commons community through a binding de-adminship process. At the end of the day, I've found that at the core to being a good admin on Commons is not merely knowing the relevant policies well, but also acting with humility and being willing to admit when one has taken an action in error. Should the community appoint me an administrator, I will bring this same ethic to my administrative work here.With respect to "conflict of focus", there's only a finite amount of time that I have for editing and performing administrative work, and the opportunity cost of doing admin work on the English Wikipedia is my doing work elsewhere. I'd also like to expand a point I touched upon a bit in my response to question 7: some of the administrative and policy norms on the English Wikipedia are quite different from those on Commons—Wikipedia has a lot more in terms procedural policy than does Commons, and the media freedom requirements enforced on Commons are much stricter than those on Wikipedia (for example, Commons absolutely prohibits files uploaded under claims of fair use and requires that works be free in their home country in addition to the U.S. while Wikipedia has non-free content criteria and templates like {{PD-ineligible-USonly}})—though several are quite similar. And there are several users, such as Ymblanter, Materialscientist, DMacks, who contribute to administrative work both here and on Commons, and they make it work. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Optional question from JPxG
- 13. At any time along the course of this RfA, have you wanted to respond to any comments or discussions, or address the deal with something in greater detail, and if so, what is your spiel on said deal? Feel free to answer this at any time, or leave it blank, or whatever.
- A:
Optional questions from Beccaynr
- 14. As an administrator, how might you respond (or not) to an editor who continues to post to another editor's usertalk page, after the other editor continues to request that the first editor comment at article talk discussion instead? In your answer, please refer to any relevant policies, guidelines, or essays that might inform your response.
- A: In this general scenario, when Editor 1 persistently posts on Editor 2's talk page against and after Editor 2's explicit requests that Editor 1 stop doing so, I would probably start by reminding Editor 1 that relevant guidelines (such as WP:USERTALKSTOP) would encourage Editor 1 to stop making further posts on Editor 2's talk page regarding the same issue. To do so, I'd likely drop a note on Editor 1's talk page asking Editor 1 to use other appropriate venues for the content dispute (which should generally
start at the disputed article's talk page
rather than user talk pages) or the conduct dispute (thefirst step is to talk with the other editor at their user talk page
, but if this isn't resolving the dispute then it should either be dropped if there really isn't a conduct problem going on or if the problem's otherwise been resolved, or taken to the appropriate administrative noticeboard should the problem rise to that level) going forward. A more specific approach would vary based on the nature of the dispute (content or conduct), the history of the users’ behavior (for example, is there a pattern of ignoring requests to take content disputes to article talk pages, has there been previous guidance or warnings given to the users in similar scenarios before that have not changed this pattern of behavior, or is this a one-off thing), and whether this sort of thing is proceeding from one user’s relative lack of experience and knowledge of community norms (as would be common in new users). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- A: In this general scenario, when Editor 1 persistently posts on Editor 2's talk page against and after Editor 2's explicit requests that Editor 1 stop doing so, I would probably start by reminding Editor 1 that relevant guidelines (such as WP:USERTALKSTOP) would encourage Editor 1 to stop making further posts on Editor 2's talk page regarding the same issue. To do so, I'd likely drop a note on Editor 1's talk page asking Editor 1 to use other appropriate venues for the content dispute (which should generally
- 15. Please discuss an AfD nomination or !vote that you have reconsidered since making the nomination or !vote, your thinking on the application of relevant policies and guidelines, including how your view may have further developed.
- A: My September 2021 nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Love Beijing Tiananmen comes to mind. This was one of my earlier AfD nominations that I had made, and it's one that I wound up withdrawing. I had initially nominated the article for deletion after looking more or less only at the other Wikipedia articles on the song and with a quick google search. Looking back, this doesn't constitute a sourcing check consistent with the expectations in Part D of WP:BEFORE. As a result, a mere 2.5 hours after I made nomination, another editor presented a wall of sources that demonstrated that the article easily passed WP:NSONG and the WP:GNG. I withdrew the AfD that same day the sources were presented, a mere 16 hours after the AfD was filed. In more recent times, I've spent quite a bit more time conducting my sourcing checks prior to nominating or voting at AfD (consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Lipscomb for example, where part of my source search led to me making new snippets from Newspapers.com articles and !voting that the article be kept even when all prior participants had indicated a preference of deletion). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Optional question from Blueskiesdry
- 16. What do you feel is your worst edit and how would you do it differently today?
- A: There isn't one worst edit that specifically jumps out in my head, though I think that the times where I misread diffs on Huggle and inadvertently restored vandalism to the mainspace would probably be my worst individual edits here (one such edit, from October 2021, is here). I've found that I have been more prone to making these sorts of errors when I've been trying to rapidly deal with vandalism reversion, particularly so when using keybinds on Huggle, and as such I decided to stop using Huggle back in March 2022. Now, when I do general antivandalsim patrolling, I use Twinkle and other anti-vandalism tools that have slower, click-based interfaces that require me to spend more time per edit; I think that slowing down when doing this sort of thing substantially reduced my error rate. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Optional question from Mx. Granger
- 17. What are your thoughts on Wikipedia's systemic bias?
- A:
Optional questions from GhostOfDanGurney
- 18. Given your username history and your position at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor-attracted person (2nd nomination), where you !supported a redirect at Minor-attracted person, therefore preserving article history (which ended with a WP:SNOW consensus to delete + salt it due to WP:CHILDPROTECT issues), how do you intend to balance WP:NOTCENSORED with WP:CHILDPROTECT as an admin?
- A:
- 19. At what point do you feel that bypassing a prescribed resolution venue such as WP:DRV in order to go to the so-called "drama boards" at WP:AN/WP:ANI is appropriate?
- A:
Optional question from JPxG
- 20. You see the following usernames in the user creation log. All have made three edits. What do you do, if anything, with respect to each?
- 1: User:I LOVE BEING RACIST!!! (all 3 edits are to insert ethnic slurs into articles)
- 2: User:Naturelover1973 (first edit was to fix a spelling error in an article about a bird species, second was to capitalize a parameter in an infobox which made it display improperly, third edit was to open a Teahouse thread titled "Help I think I broke the article!")
- 3: User:I F*CKING LOVE BEING RACIST!!! (all 3 edits are to insert ethnic slurs into articles)
- 5: User:I F*CKING LOVE BEING RACIST!!! AND VANDALIZING WIKIPEDIA!!! (all 3 edits are to insert ethnic slurs into articles)
- A:
Optional question from User:NotAGenious
- 21. Did you use artificial intelligence to assist in writing your response to question 8?
- A:
Discussion
- Links for Red-tailed hawk: Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Red-tailed hawk can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.
Support
- 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)
- I feel that I have to speak up about the minor-attracted person thing. First of all, RTH was the person who nominated the redirect for deletion the first time, citing concerns about WP:CHILDPROTECT. I also feel the need to say that 22spears was not the person who created the page. It was someone else who also intended for it to redirect to Chronophilia, but I don't want to name them. In fact, they are an administrator who has made some of the best blocks related to WP:CHILDPROTECT I have ever seen. I respect them for that. So it's obvious that they don't like pedophiles. The evidence I have gives me no reason to believe that RTH will be any different. Scorpions1325 (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Support I thought RTH was already an admin. No concerns and enthusiatic support. Geoff | Who, me? 14:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support - Meets my criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThadeusOfNazereth (talk • contribs) 15:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. I have seen the user around and don't have any major concerns. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Jaireeodell (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Support no concern about their ability to be an admin. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support jengod (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 18:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Vacant0 (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. ––FormalDude (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- Alright, now I have a bit of time to write it, here's a proper support.
- Support. Excellent answers above, no red flags I can see. - SchroCat (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support -- Euryalus (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- Frostly (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Rcsprinter123 (commune) 19:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support. Will elucidate as I feel bad for not elucidating on a withdrawn RFA recently. I'm swayed by User:Newslinger and User:Tamzin, who both make strong cases. I'm also willing to follow User:BD2412 whose judgement I have learnt to trust over the years. I also have an essay at User:Hiding/Admin standards which sums up my thoughts on how to be an admin, and if it's outdated I hope it's of value in explaining why i support if it comes down to a 'crat counting the numbers. [edited 17:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)] Hiding T 20:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. –Davey2010Talk 20:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Mujinga (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Per the noms, per EdJohnston, and especially per RTH's enjoyment of the project. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Has a clue. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Good candidate! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 22:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Good candidate. Just a random Wikipedian(talk) 00:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Leijurv (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. ✗plicit 01:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- No reason not to. BilledMammal (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- not jerk has clue jp×g🗯️ 05:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support - JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 07:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Only good interactions, kind and knows their policy. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support - I think RTH will make a useful addition to the admin corps. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. ZsinjTalk 15:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Maliner (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support: no concerns; I find the opposes related to "being active at dramaboards" unreasonable. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 17:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Support From reading through the rfa page and the answer to my question, nothing bad really jumps out at me. blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 21:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Clearly trustworthy and helpful Steven Walling • talk 21:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. I was tremendously impressed by their communication ability in responding to the questions, and I feel positions of trust elsewhere on Wikipedia held without major controversy are a positive sign. So I started primed to support unless compelling reasons to oppose. I am a bit concerned by the dust-up alluded to by Brat Forelli's Q (though not keen on the political nature of the question) and by Shushugah's neutral. While not swayed by the specifics in Lightburst's oppose, I am also a bit concerned by the broader pattern around it mentioned by Joe. Nevertheless, I continue to support and hope RTH will spend more time uncontroversially mopping and thoughtfully discussing than finding fault and dispensing judgment. Martinp (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Whyever not? Maproom (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Very impressed by their answers. I did not study regarding the oppose comments that they have been active and harsh at the drama-boards, but if in doubt, it would be good to defer being an active admin on sanctioning until later. North8000 (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Good noms, trusted with the tools on Commons, not noticed them either here or on Commons, that works for me. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support No real concerns. I would have liked to see a more succesful attempt at FA writing, but the candidate appears to have learned valuable lessons. In particular,
the responsibility that administrators have to the community that they serve
. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC) - Support Partofthemachine (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Red-tailed hawk is supremely helpful (and friendly!) both onwiki and on Discord! What a great communicator and diligent volunteer. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 04:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support per Shushugah's neutral vote. Anyone who has the courage to take that bold a stance publicly on Wikipedia in the charged environment of RfA knowing that they'd likely do an RfA themselves one day (let's not kid ourselves, people think about it for a while) will be an excellent administrator. In other words, administrators with the moral courage to realize NPOV does not require us treating objective moral evil as anything less than what it is are a positive. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Kind of WP:POINTY Tony. Everyone knows history is written by the winners. Shushugah is entitled to an opinion. Lightburst (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- It is incorrect to state that history is invariably written by the winners. A well-known counter example is the United States, where much of the history of the War of the Rebellion was written by southerners. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Entitlement to an opinion does not deprive others from their entitlement to disagree with it, find it morally misguided, and argue against it. People are entitled to think that on a project devoted to the exchange of free knowledge that users should be allowed to express their sympathy for the secret police of totalitarian states. I am entitled to say that's antithetical to everything Wikipedia stands for and that I'm glad the candidate is has a spine and is willing to take a stand agains such views. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Kind of WP:POINTY Tony. Everyone knows history is written by the winners. Shushugah is entitled to an opinion. Lightburst (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Why not? -Fastily 10:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support I've noticed this user doing some really great stuff! – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Good candidate — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 14:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Joyous! Noise! 17:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- support--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Kablammo (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support - I am and was satisfied with Red-tailed hawk as an editor, and I see that there are benefits in the copyright enforcement area to having Commons-ENWP admins, and RTH should be the next Commons-ENWP admin. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
OpposeSupport they're good, too good. Jokes aside RTH is a pleasure to edit alongside and I have full trust in them. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (he|she|they) 21:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)- Support Let a name like this strike fear into vandals, as they scutter rodent-like hoping to hide in the dense weeds of the fields of discourse on the English Wikipedia, only for Red-tailed Hawk to swoop down without warning from a distant treetop (or telephone pole), having seen them all the time, just waiting for the right moment to strike. Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support I'm back from vacation and have given this RfA enough time to develop. I've seen RTH around and he's shown himself to be competent and helpful. While the arguments of the opposition may have merit, I believe that RTH would do more good than harm as an admin and I would be happy to support his endeavor. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 05:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support No reason to believe RTH would be a net negative to the project as an admin. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 06:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Seen them very frequently in discussions offering valuable insights. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely, everything I have seen from them has been good. --Ferien (talk) 13:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support seems qualified. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Adding on to this a bit, I have been impressed with RTH's communication, arguably the single most important quality in an administrator. I also think their content work, on a glance, is enough to show that they understand how to write content-- pretty important to me in an administrator. Thoughtful answers to the questions suggest someone who is ready for the tools. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per ferret. – SJ + 18:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Strong abstain (support fr fr): I low-key assumed that they were already an administrator but.. definitely qualified, good answers, actual need for tools, etc. and most of the oppose votes (not all, no disrespect to some opposers who have fairly justified reasons) are braindead. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 23:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Red-tailed hawk is an experienced user and their answers to the adminship questions have been sensible and detailed. No concerns. That Tired Tarantula (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support. I have carefully studied the objections below, but I am still of the opinion that he will make a good admin. Bduke (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support. I've seen the candidate around quite a bit, and I was pretty much ready to support as soon as I saw this RfA open. Since then, I've tried to look carefully at each of the issues that have been raised during this discussion, including going back through several of the content disputes, and I've decided that there is nothing that bothers me. I see thoughtful reasons for how to use the tools, and intelligent answers to questions. This is someone I can happily trust with the mop. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support I thought that red-tailed hawk was an administrator before. The person who loves reading (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Read their Driving in Madagascar GA after watching The Grand Tour where Richard Hammond put tank treads on his SUV to get through the country. Understanding content creation is a good skill for admins and editors in general, Rjjiii (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Positive attitude, good editor. Hawk will be a great admin methinks. Curbon7 (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support I trust Red-tailed hawk implicitly on copyright matters. Working eith him at Copyright problms as clerks has been enough proof for me that he has competence, but also the ability to step back and ask for second opinions, or even leave the task be for others to work on if he does not know how to resolve an issue. His listings, although some of the most complex, are rarely false positives or without merit. He is receptive to feedback in my experiences, and I have faith that the qualities I've seen will carry elsewhere. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support No big deal. Garion96 (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support, no reason to think they'd abuse the tools. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support - No concerns here. -- Dane talk 19:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- With pleasure. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Wizardman 00:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support I have seen Red-tailed hawk around. I trust that they will internalize the criticism from the oppose rationales. I also trust that they will communicate better and spend less time on the drama boards. Bruxton (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support. We're lucky to have RTH, and he'll be more of an asset to the project with a couple extra buttons. He's already been extend a few measures of trust by us and our sister projects, and he's proven the trust to be well-placed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Definitely a net positive to the project. While the Opposes may correctly note his penchant for the drama boards, sometimes we need someone who is able to navigate that treacherous waters instead of someone who stays out of the murky waters of the drama boards. His experience to close contentious RFC is also noted and greatly appreciated. Being an admin should be easy - getting too laser-focused on each and every actions would deter anyone from being an admin. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 08:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Good answer to Q14. (I think that declining to answer Q9 and Q17 is quite appropriate; those aren't really in scope for an RfA and seem to be rather "gotcha" questions.) Some of the concerns raised in opposes are at least somewhat valid, but they also seem to be one-offs rather than to indicate some ongoing pattern, and none of us could handle things optimally every single time, so that cannot be the expectation. Given that, I don't see any substantial concerns. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Great respect for the nom, I'll go with Amanda. - FlightTime (open channel) 11:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support I have seen them around answering false reports for edit filters and they seem competent and friendly. Nagol0929 (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support see no issues here ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies, this is a long one. tl;dr version - AGF, GTG, small caveat: please be cautious.
- This is the hardest RfA in which I have ever participated; I've sat on this for four days now and considered every possible type of contribution.
- I generally follow all the RfAs (or at least have done so for the last 3-4 years). Usually in an RfA where I am uncertain, I simply do not participate on the basis that this is the most fair approach, to both the candidate and the encyclopaedia. I take the view that unless I am familiar with the candidate or am prepared to spend time to investigate their work here, the best contribution I can make is to allow others to determine the outcome. That was the path that I had originally chosen here, but then the neutral vote from Shushugah and the oppose from Beccanyr struck me quite strongly. They are two editors whose work I am familiar with and editors who I consider to make valuable contributions. I do not think either of their contributions was made lightly or absent of due consideration. Their votes made me realise that I had actually come across the candidate much more frequently than I had realised, as Mhawk10 - mostly via AfD. I feel the issues raised in both their votes were not unreasonable and looking back at my experiences of RTH/MH10 there were certain resonances.
- In some of my experiences of MH10/RTH I feel their world-view overly influenced their interpretation of policy and guidelines. I found certain of their contributions related to political subjects were of a particular slant - they appeared to sometimes promote, for lack of a better term, an official US-state centric world-view. I'm providing two examples that caused me to pause in my consideration, there were others, but the point here is not to provide evidence *against*, but rather to illustrate what I would have hoped *for*:
- their interventions at Radio Free Asia and its talk page, while, in my mind, correctly supporting the creation of a separate article dealing with the entity of the same name from the 1950s, which clearly was an organ of US intelligence, generally supported inclusion of material which highlighted RFA's "indepencence" while downplaying the effects of its links to the US government. Here I'm concerned not because I believe there's some equivalnce between RFERL/RFA and, for example, Russia Today (we absolutely should make qualitiative differences between state broadcasters) rather how MH10/RTH handled the dispute over inclusion of material in the lede qualifying RFA's independence - there was no sense of consensus building which in the case of a state broadcaster mandated under law to support US foreign policy would have been a more than reasonable approach.
- "Far-right? Are you kidding me? That isn't remotely close to what the source says" - yet, the source actually indicates that the Chinese government considers the subject of the article, an employee of a US government funded organisation, to be far right. Here, I'm not so concerned with the removal of the far-right characterisation, but rather the uncivil manner and the somewhat misleading claim about the source in the edit summary.
- I have no concern with editors working in areas of their own interest and experience (I certaintly do), but the question is are we able to work in those areas consistent with the requirements of this encyclopaedia?
- We are all influenced by our own world-views and to varying extents we carry that worldview with us in the work we do here, especially when we interpret this encyclopaedia's policies and guildelines. Nevertheless, we all (I hope!) try to temper our world-view to the extent that produces collaboration within our agreed frameworks - but even in the best circumstances that still leaves a great deal of room for variety of interpretation. Still, all this must be weighed against the thousands of innoucous, good faith, day-in, day-out edits undertaken by MH10/RTH.
- Having encountered MH10/RTH mostly at AfD, I took a closer look at their stats which showed a noticeable change - 72.7% (Oct-Dec 2021) [1] and 85.5% ( Dec 2021 - July 2022) [2] with almost exclusively only deletion nominations However, since July 2023, a signifcant drop in deletion nomination only actions and a far greater alignment to community views (94.1%).
- I mentioned two contibutions initially struck me, but a third contribution here subsequently struck me further - the personal endorsement from Tamzin in their 2nd intervention. Their contribution made me reassess my own thoughts, especially making me recall how online personas can be markedly different from "reality", how online interactions can tend ad extremum. I think it is reasonable to see some of MH10/RTH's contributions in that light. However, we need to remember that the framing of our own views of another often occurs in a very narrow context and one needs to be highly mindful not to extrapolate an inability to be an effective admin on the basis of differences of opinion alone.
- So, I find myself here on the support side - tempering my own world-view, judging the candidate by their development and potential, reflecting upon the weight of support received and making a good faith assumption. I've not landed here completely without reservation and I hope the candidate in their future mop work takes on board what I see as a number of constructive comments. I'd opine that at this point a reluctance to wield the mop in the arena of US geo/politcs broadly defined might be appropriate.
- That said, a committment to assuming good faith really needs to mean something, it cannot be a slogan we wave around, applying at the most inconsequential moments (eg a talk page comment), rather it needs to be applied in those moments where high levels of trust are to be given. It's only in that way that we can expect that trust to be reciprocated and that we can build a culture of civility and constructive engagement during our disagreements. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support A little unresponsive to pings sometimes, but certainly not a reason not to support. Looks willing to participate in lengthy noticeboard discussions and hold their stance, which I respect 🙂 Johnson524 16:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support No concerns ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 18:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 20:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support: No concerns. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 20:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Im probably not the first to say that I already thought they were an admin...multiple times. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 21:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- As someone who contributes more at AN/ANI than is probably ideal, in perhaps snarkier than optimal ways, I am sympathetic to the thesis that it could be a bad idea to promote to admin someone who shares that flaw. However, I looked over my interactions with Red-tailed hawk in those venues (and elsewhere) and saw no hint of anything worrisome in how they conducted themself. --JBL (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support: I can't speak much to them on this project because I'm not here much anymore, but over on Commons whenever I see them they're making the situation better, not worse. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support – Muboshgu (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support - I don't think I ever interacted with RTH directly, but I've seen them around and I was a little surprised to learn that they aren't already an admin. Wikipedia is in dire need of admins right now, and from what I have seen, RTH is a prime candidate for the mop. - ZLEA T\C 05:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Absolutely! Seawolf35 T--C 09:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Per all above. Great candidate. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support. As deserves WP:200. Not without concern, the oppose votes make good points, RTH does sometimes go into disputes too hot. Shushugah's neutral & esp. Beccaynr's oppose is a good example. It's natural to sometimes feel annoyed at the positions others take on articles. And understandable to sometimes argue your case forcefully on article talk. But it's not collegial to argue about content in user space, esp. not once the other editor indicates they don't want such discussion on their talk. There's 3 reasons why I'm still supporting at regular strength. 1) While the concern about RTH supporting harsh sanctions is something to take seriously, I could find little evidence when sampling RTH's ANI contribs - more often I saw them arguing for leniency, and in some cases also showing an admirable willingness to change their mind when presented with superior arguments . Examples: 1 2 3. 2) The fact that folk who know the candidate well and presumably have different political views, like Tamzin & MJL, have came out to bat so strongly for him. 3) And mostly to counter the MAP thing. As per scorpion, it was RTH who first put the MAP article up for deletion.. As per JPxG's note at the bottom of this page, it's unclear the MAP page necessarily had contents that needed to be inaccessible from 'View History' While RTH voted redirect & the AFD closed as delete & salt, the MAP page was later turned back to redirect, as it is right now. It's understandable many get emotional over such issues, but among clear sighted people who prioritise childrens welfare over moral grandstanding, its a common view not to want to over stigmatise non-offending pedophiles - thus increasing the odds that they seek treatment for their condition, reducing the lieklyhood they'd harm children should they later experience a period of peak stress. This isn't to say delete & salt wasn't also a reasonable outcome, or that Beccaynr & Ghost are grandstanding in this RFA, but it does seem likely they've let their unpleasant content dispute with RTH colour their take on the issue. If anything, RTH seems to have done more than most to protect childrens interests, so good on the community for not casting a single extra oppose since the nonsense MAP attack was launched 3 days back. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support - FitIndia Talk (Admin on Commons) 19:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support - still remember the conversation I had with him on the Reliable Sources notice board. Very articulate and knowledgable on WP:RS policy. Would be a great asset as an admin --SpunkyGeek (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support - As I can see, Red-tailed hawk has done good work in the deletion and coyright administrative areas and has also written several good articles. Overall, I think they are a great editor who is very capable, competent, and suitable for becoming an administrator. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Thoughtful editor. No concerns. You have my support. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- No qualms on my end. -- Dolotta (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support - good range of experience. Blythwood (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Generally good editor who handles close discussions loquaciously. Some conern about the occasionally intemperate response, but there are decent admins who do the same. Well vetted. — Charles Stewart (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Qualified and generally appears competent. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2024 (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)
- 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)
- Strong oppose This editor is an automatic oppose from me due to an interaction on my talk page in November 2021 when they were Mikehawk10 [3]. The user wanted me to un-withdraw an AfD that had no chance of gaining consensus for delete on purely bureaucratic/procedural grounds, yet at the same time oddly threatening to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE at WP:AN (?!?) rather than do the normal thing for AfDs and go to WP:DRV, backing off when replied to by 力 [4]. This was a bizarre insistence on procedure which speaks to a lack of nuance that should be essential for all toolholders. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 05:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- In your response to RTH's request to unwithdraw the AfD, you wrote:
Oh, cut the crap, I can see in your edit history the real reason you're writing this.
- Can you say what this real reason was and what made you consider him dishonest back then? Brat Forelli🦊 06:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- I believe it was due to his !support of "Naming Kelli Stavast" at Talk:Let's Go Brandon and of "Should Kelli Stavast be explicitly given the credit for coining the phase Let's Go Brandon?" at Talk:Kelli Stavast leading me to believe that he wanted me to reopen the AfD just to add to the pile of keep !votes (there were 9, to 1 stricken delete !vote). The dishonesty I felt coming from his purported reason being to allow further discussion based on an unstricken comment in the delete !vote.
- Reflecting back, this reply you highlight was a failure of WP:AGF on my part, and it's very, very likely that he genuinely simply wanted to reply (or allow replies) to that comment, but with 9 keep !votes already, really, what's the point in asking for a reopen? It's also odd that the diff from Talk:Kelli Stavast contains a comment from Metropolitan90 despite that user never posting in Talk:Kelli Stavast. Was this an accidental part of a paste that was overlooked? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- I don't really understand how a single "bizarre instance" from 2 years ago speaks to his current editing & administrative capabilities, or how it's grounds for an !oppose, let alone a !strong oppose. He's got 27k edits on enwiki, and 57k globally; surely anyone with that much experience on this family of websites will make weird decisions sometimes. sawyer * he/they * talk 06:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- I couldn't care less about a users global edit count if their personal interactions with me are 100% negative. I do not have trust in how this user would interact with me if given the ability to block me. Lightburst pointed out that this user has a tendency to suggest harsh punishments at ANI and threatening to go to AN over DRV I believe corroborates that. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- In your response to RTH's request to unwithdraw the AfD, you wrote:
- Oppose. Red-tailed hawk is extremely active at the dramaboards (359 edits to ANI and 162 to AN).[5][6][7] That's a red flag for me: as a non-admin he can't actually action anything there, and as far as I can tell he's never actually been involved in the dispute. He just offers commentary and unfortunately, like those above, I've noticed that he tends to focus on finding fault and calling for sanctions rather than de-escalation. I don't think that speaks to the kind of temperament we want in admins. If this RfA does succeed, I wish RTH luck in finding more sympathetic ears for his admin conduct than he has offered others. – Joe (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oh and something I hadn't connected to RTH until I saw the discussion above about his old name: when I tried to talk to (then) Mikehawk10 about unsourced negative material he included alongside my real name in a Signpost article, he didn't even respond. Just got another editor to stonewall me on his behalf. Which is ironic, considering how often he drags admins over the coals at ANI for perceived accountability failures. – Joe (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Re: your indented comment, hopefully without coming off as badgering, and without judging this particular situation—speaking as a former Signpost editor-in-chief, I would have been happy when a writer handed off contentious correction request to me. Part of signing up to be the editor is a willingness to take on those discussions. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- I enjoy the Signpost very much, but we should also acknowledge that at the end of the day it's a set of project pages, subject to the same policies as any other (like WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:BLPREMOVE), not an actual newspaper. I expect users to take responsibility for what they write, especially if it's about others, especially if it's contentious, and especially if they want to be an admin – not hand it off to someone else. – Joe (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Oppose. Concerns about excessive interest in drama boards and punitive mentality. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Have drama and maturity concerns, although the candidate is a highly valued editor. Voting with regret as there is obviously a shortage of hard working admins, but worry re where they would focus use of the tools....ie blocking ex AN/I reports. Ceoil (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - based on my experience with the candidate, my observations generally, and my review of their AfD history. My questions were an attempt to resolve some of these concerns, but the lack of response to Q14 (posted at 19:50, 30 December 2023 [8]) as of the posting of this oppose, and the response to Q15, have not provided reassurance. As further detail:
- For me, the context of a discussion in November 2021 on my user talk page started by RTH (then known as Mikehawk10) was in the midst of a multi-faceted content dispute that I found stressful, and RTH engaged in a form of conduct I have rarely seen here, which is to split and repeat content discussions between article and user talk pages, despite repeated requests to stop. From my view, under the circumstances, and as to Q14 generally, it felt like
repeated annoying and unwanted contact
, but as a single episode of conduct, an admin response could be to tell an editor to "knock it off." As an editor who has only rarely seen this happen, the conduct stands out to me, and perhaps more so here with Q14 unanswered for as long as it has been, including because according to WP:ADMINACCT,Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct
. - I was also aware of the discussion with Tamzin about the original username before this RfA; an editor learns their username can be recognized as "my cock ten" but declines to change the name until it risks interfering with their application to obtain further user rights. I am happy to assume RTH had no idea about the meaning when they first created the username - I also miss a lot of jokes - but the reluctance to adapt to the feedback after the meaning became known seems to me to be an example of poor judgment - not necessarily in a 'must change the username' way, but as a 'should change the username' unless they wish to adopt the lewd reference and potentially bring that into any interaction they have with other editors.
- For Q15, I considered this an opportunity to reconsider some more recent AfD nominations and !votes. For example:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor-attracted person (2nd nomination) - this AfD WP:SNOW closed on 17 May 2023 as delete with the page title salted, with WP:CHILDPROTECT raised by the closer with regard to the development and content of the article. RTH !voted to blank-and-redirect, which would have preserved the history of the article. This is a past !vote I had hoped to have seen reconsidered in response to Q15.As noted below, RTH also wrote "or delete", which I missed, and I apologize for not making this clear at the outset.- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mug shot of Donald Trump - nominated by RTH on 25 August 2023 shortly after article creation; I participated in this AfD, and relied on WP:RAPID as well as a wide range of sources to support my keep !vote; RTH followed up on the first SNOW closure on the closer's user talk page about why WP:NOPAGE arguments were excluded from the closing summary. After other editors joined the discussion, the AfD was reopened and then SNOW closed again on 26 August 2023. From my view, there are limited editor and admin resources available at AfD, and reconsidering both the nomination and the follow-up might have been a reasonable reflection to include in Q15 based on the outcome of the AfD.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Cooper (commentator) - this AfD closed on 6 May 2023 as no consensus without prejudice to a speedy renomination, after more than a month of discussion, and I have no objection to the closer's finding of legitimate disagreement about some of the media sources provided; I !voted to delete based on an analysis of sources and application of policy, and RTH !voted to keep, suggesting significant coverage existed and the article could be fixed. I am less concerned about this !vote, but it was memorable to me because of how constrained we can be according to various policies, including WP:BLP and WP:PROMO, from loading up a biographical article with promotional and/or negative content.
- Overall, from my view, there is a collection of past and more recent conduct and judgment calls that lead me to oppose at this time. I think more experience demonstrated on this project may help resolve these concerns, particularly related to interactions with editors, responsiveness to feedback, and consideration of policies and guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC) expand, with apology Beccaynr (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC) updated to strike example Beccaynr (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I wanted to stop by and just leave some food for thought on this.
- In regards to RTH not meeting WP:ADMINACCT, I think you focus too narrowly on the wording in that policy. The full sentence is
Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards or during Arbitration Committee proceedings.
The key here is that the qualifier here is about their "Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions". Your question, while referencing an actual incident in your oppose, asks a hypothetical question that doesn't bring into question RTH's conduct. It is normal for RfA candidates to consult their noms to help guide them through the hellhole that RfA can be. Yes, we all signed up for noming/running this RfA, but I think 48 hours leeway is fine to ask for over the holidays especially since the question wasn't about RTH's conduct. So I will just ask that you contemplate that, and where ever you land is fine with me, I just wanted food for thought on that. It might also be better have asked a question with your concern about his previous conduct so they could address what they have learned since November 2021. - In regards to the MAP AfD, I find it a little odd that we are applying OS level thought for an RfA. Child protection is a very serious topic, agreed, and frankly that is why it is a job given to oversighters, ArbCom, Stewards and the WMF to handle. From my experience being an oversighter, a fair number of admins we have on the books now can barely handle revdel assessments - if that, and much less an oversight assessment. Also throwing child protection in the middle of an RfA is going to raise a lot of eyebrows because it gets a lot of people worried fast, something I think we could have avoided in drama.
- In regards to the Donald trump mug shot - RTH did nominate and did ask a clarifying question (per the ADMINACCT you link above) to understand why something wasn't talked about in a close. I've had many people do that to my closes - and even gotten in some boiling water over it. It was a reasonable question to ask, and if other people decided to re-open the DRV from there, that's on the admin who reopened and the remainder of people in the discussion, not RTH. Also RfA noms are really nice to look at hindsight 20:20 - but people don't always agree and that is where we have to consider walking in the shoes of others.
- In regards to the Brett Cooper AfD you don't even seem to be critical of RTH on this and seem to just be making a generic observation about the community. At the end of the day people will disagree at AfD, and baring other policy issues, it's a healthy discussion, and certain people will land on certain sides like deletionist or inclusionist. What matters is that they showed they put thought and effort in line with the pillars of the community and contribute positively in a discussion.
- All that said, I'm not here to change your vote by any means, again just give food for thought and I'll leave it there. If you want to dig deeper into RTH's conduct, especially more recent conduct in the remaining admin areas, I would encourage it. -- Amanda (she/her) 21:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- No comment on the substance of Beccaynr's oppose, but I second AmandaNP's remarks about revdel and OS—an alarming number of editors (including admins) don't seem to understand the criteria for revision deletion and suppression. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen pretty egregious stuff that didn't seem to be recognized by experienced editors as problematic, and I recall one incident in which a checkuser (!) reverted some edits that obviously contained PII, apparently without requesting suppression. These edits remained in the page's revision history until I requested suppression several months later. I encourage everyone reading this to review Wikipedia:Revision deletion and Wikipedia:Oversight—anecdotally, a lack of understanding of these policies among experienced editors seems to be an epidemic and has the potential to cause real-world harm. — Callitropsis🌲[formerly SamX · talk · contribs] 22:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) To clarify a little bit, Q14 was designed to address a concern I had about a past incident and the general nature of the conduct, while considering whether and how I would participate in this discussion, e.g. would the answer be an example of the growth alluded to in your nomination statement. RTH had also already been directly asked about their conduct in Q5 and stated they should have taken Tamzin's advice without explaining why; it therefore seemed reasonable to try asking a question that started with the "why" and a potential to avoid drama. RTH also chose to run the RfA over the holidays and answered other questions instead of Q14, which wasn't designed to be particularly challenging, but yes, not only was it during the holidays, it was also an optional question; in the meantime, I explained my perspective on a past incident, and how it relates to my overall oppose vote, and RTH then responded to Q14.
- With regard to the AfDs: in the MAP AfD, WP:CHILDPROTECT appears to be within the consideration of the admin closer and multiple AfD participants. According to the policy, it is
a key issue
, which is why I raised it. As to the mug shot and Cooper AfDs, these are less-serious judgment calls, and with the Cooper AfD, what was memorable was the idea that the article could be fixed with the available sources and in accordance with policies such as WP:NOT and WP:BLP - less of a concern, because of the wide range of opinions at AfD, but still a concern from my view with regard to consideration of policy. Beccaynr (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- For me, the context of a discussion in November 2021 on my user talk page started by RTH (then known as Mikehawk10) was in the midst of a multi-faceted content dispute that I found stressful, and RTH engaged in a form of conduct I have rarely seen here, which is to split and repeat content discussions between article and user talk pages, despite repeated requests to stop. From my view, under the circumstances, and as to Q14 generally, it felt like
Neutral
- Neutral. Thank you for volunteering. RHT's contributions and areas of interest are very generous and knowledgeable. Given my personal bias/stake I am reluctant to outright oppose but I found their McCarthyite answer here very worrisome for a Wikipedia that has an American worldview bias as is. In the event they do get the mop, I would hope they refrain from making future political judgment or standards that are not backed by Wikipedia policy. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Shushugah, would you mind striking your personal attack of calling someone a McCarthyite because they opposed you on the grounds that you were unable to say that a user with a userbox supporting the secret police of a brutal dictatorship was a morally bad thing and would be in appropriate on Wikipedia. Also, the implications of political bias in calling the secret police of a communist dictatorship that collapsed before many of our current users were born human rights violators stretches the outer edges of credulity. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni Why misrepresenting the issue? Shushugah was not "unable" to condemn an editor, as you allege. Instead, Shushugah were clear that they did not view their role as an obligation to pass moral judgements on other editors, and instead preferred to focus on actual contributions. They were absolutely right in that, especially given that an attempt at being a moral police had almost wrecked another RfA. So, if you want to discuss that other RfA – in which you did not take part – perhaps strike this PA and start the discussion on Shushugah's usertalk? — kashmīrī TALK 19:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- No misrepresentation at all and no virtue signaling like you claimed above, and no, there's no personal attack. I stand behind the principles of WP:NONAZIS, which I helped coauthor, that there are some beliefs that inherently incompatible with a project devoted to the free and open exchange of knowledge. And while that essay is focused on far-right extremists and neo-nazis, yes, the secret police of fallen communist regimes fall into the same category. So yeah, when someone makes comments on an RFA doubting the fitness of someone to be an admin because they don't think editors should be allowed to openly suppor the Stasi, it's a fair thing to point out how misguided the commentary is. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- With due respect to whatever background in history you might have, but I fail to see any commonalities between the Nazi beliefs, which you listed extensively in your essay, and a state security agency whose original purpose was to dismantle Nazi power structures. If you think that Stasi policies were in any way aligned with any of the Nazi beliefs you listed, I'll ask you to provide good sourcing – strong enough to justify your criticism of an RfA candidate for not taking a political stance against Stasi based on your essay.
- I would expect that as a former admin you'd support the fact that Wikipedia is not censored and welcomes a variety of standpoints, including e.g. editors who support Donald Trump, Putin or Bush, those who deny the Armenian genocide, those who support Russian narrative in Ukraine or the US narrative in Iraq, those that take a nuanced stand on the politics of Iran, Belarus, Saudi Arabia, Israel and similar regimes, and so on. Shushugah's diplomatically-worded refusal to go into naïve political simplifications with regard to East Germany as you wanted them to, only attests to their maturity. And no, Wikipedia is not advocacy and I disagree that editors should be forced to speak against any country or its agencies, present or past, especially at their own RfA.
- Here, Shushugah refused to support an editor due to their conduct at an RfA, only to be called out by you for not taking a political stance. Are you sure you it is an encyclopaedia that you work to create? — kashmīrī TALK 07:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- No misrepresentation at all and no virtue signaling like you claimed above, and no, there's no personal attack. I stand behind the principles of WP:NONAZIS, which I helped coauthor, that there are some beliefs that inherently incompatible with a project devoted to the free and open exchange of knowledge. And while that essay is focused on far-right extremists and neo-nazis, yes, the secret police of fallen communist regimes fall into the same category. So yeah, when someone makes comments on an RFA doubting the fitness of someone to be an admin because they don't think editors should be allowed to openly suppor the Stasi, it's a fair thing to point out how misguided the commentary is. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni Why misrepresenting the issue? Shushugah was not "unable" to condemn an editor, as you allege. Instead, Shushugah were clear that they did not view their role as an obligation to pass moral judgements on other editors, and instead preferred to focus on actual contributions. They were absolutely right in that, especially given that an attempt at being a moral police had almost wrecked another RfA. So, if you want to discuss that other RfA – in which you did not take part – perhaps strike this PA and start the discussion on Shushugah's usertalk? — kashmīrī TALK 19:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Neutral at this time. I have concerns at this time about whether there may be a conflict of time or conflict of attitude associated with being an administrator at Commons and an administrator at English Wikipedia. I may resolve these concerns next year. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)- For what it's worth, I compared the list of admins from enwiki and commons and found there's an overlap of 32 users. Your comment made me curious what kind of overlap there was and I thought I'd share the result. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Neutral for now, I'd like to see an answer to question 14 before deciding. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Moved to support.
- Shushugah, would you mind striking your personal attack of calling someone a McCarthyite because they opposed you on the grounds that you were unable to say that a user with a userbox supporting the secret police of a brutal dictatorship was a morally bad thing and would be in appropriate on Wikipedia. Also, the implications of political bias in calling the secret police of a communist dictatorship that collapsed before many of our current users were born human rights violators stretches the outer edges of credulity. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Neutral I don't really have any strong feelings one way or another. Dr John Carter from ER (the TV show) (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral I can't decide whether or not the concerns by Beccaynr are a showstopper. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral The issues brought up by the opposers have raised enough doubt for me to refrain from offering a support at this time.Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral, leaning oppose - I'm deeply concerned about the potential for drama from this candidate, especially considering the amount of barely-on-topic ANI commentary. The "wrong" AFD votes, on the other hand, don't particularly bother me—I never consider "wrong" AFD votes to be a significant issue since AFD is supposed to be a discussion building to a consensus where editors will have different opinions. This is especially true when, in the AFD I looked at (the pedo one), Red-tailed hawk had basically voted delete but in different words if you read past the bolded part. I am glad that the candidate took the suggestion from the SPI team to heart and changed his rather childish initial username. Because I am unwilling to oppose off something I can't put into quantifiable examples, I am voting neutral. That said, this RFA is obviously going to pass by a landslide, so I'd just like to recommend Red-tailed hawk always think about whether his comments as an ANI admin contribute p[ositively to the discussion or, as they say, generate more heat than light. If a comment isn't going to help bring about a productive result, even if it's not negative or hostile in any way, it's usually not helpful to post it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I've been mulling this over all week. On the one hand, RTH could be just the kind of admin we need, getting stuck into backlogs and making lots of use of the tools. We couod do with a few more high-volume admins to increase the bus factor and I've seen nothing to suggest RTH would abuse the tools or make arbitrary actions. I do worry, as per Reaper above, about a propensity for drama from someone who spends a lot of time at the drama boards and whose comments there don't always seem to help progress things towards a resolution or deeper understanding. RTH, please consider that ANI is the second-most-edited page on the whole wiki and that admins in particular should approach discussions there cautiously and always aiming to get the best result for the least drama. I'm not quite a support but ultimately I'm not an oppose because you don't lack anything that can't be learnt on the job. Just please be willing to learn and listen and good luck. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral I'm coming down in this camp after watching this process all week myself. I'll grant the candidate has learned much and has demonstrated technical competence and a need for tools. I do not have much personal experience with the candidate but the numbers look fine. It's clear by now the candidate will sufficiently earn the community's trust to wield the mop. Good for Wikipedia, and I will abide by the community's call, work gladly with Red-tailed hawk, and look forward to helping welcome a new sysop. However, I'm not a huge fan of non-admins who spend lots of their time on ANI and AN, for reasons already discussed. (they are welcome to be there, but I am not required to enjoy everyone's wit) Likewise, I cannot dismiss from my memory the user's previous username, and that the user opted not to change the name until requesting additional permissions (processes which I followed in real time). In today's online culture, screen name Mikehawk10 screams disingenuousness and teen humor; a decision not to change it on first request tells me something about the character of the human behind the screen name. The given rationale for the original username seems so unlikely it taxes my willing belief. It's the clinging to this story I question. I believe an admin candidate should come clean when questioned and in this case I'm not satisfied. BusterD (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral and echoing Reaper Eternal. It's not because of the relatively minor weight of issues brought up by Joe, Lightburst, and others, but because those issues already form a pattern, which in my view may not allow, at least in medium term, to build trust in the candidate's decisions, instead leading to more drama. Simply, I am apprehensive that the described issues will keep popping up, even as the community will have much less ability to influence RTH's behaviour. While a neutral is most I can give at the moment, it's now evident that RTH will get the mop, and so my neutral nevertheless comes with best wishes. — kashmīrī TALK 23:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
General comments
- I would recommend RTH not answer questions 9. Who should or shouldn't be an admin is a fair question at ACE, but has absolutely nothing to do with what an admin does. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, uh, are people allowed to just nakedly ask admin candidates what their politics opinions are? jp×g🗯️ 05:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- I agree Q9 shouldn't be asked, and yet RTH did precisely that on my RfA. The fact that we probably disagree as Tamzin mentioned, is not an issue, if anything that is an asset. But the political litmus test beyond Wikipedia policy shouldn't have a place here. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, uh, are people allowed to just nakedly ask admin candidates what their politics opinions are? jp×g🗯️ 05:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't look like there's much gain to be had from discussing this further :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- I'm curious about people who have opposed because of RTH's participation in administrator noticeboards. I have not had many interactions with RTH on AN(I) much, though EdJohnston's support above gave a convincing assessment of what RTH's comments at those noticeboards look like. If there is a pattern that suggests that the candidate often favors punitive actions, there should be a list of discussions where RTH was against consensus in suggesting a sanction. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
For the record, since some people have made reference to the discussion and outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor-attracted person (2nd nomination) -- I think there is some confusion here, perhaps enhanced by the fact that the article's deletion means that old revisions (i.e. the actual page being discussed at the AfD) cannot be viewed. It seems like the mention of WP:CHILDPROTECT in the closer's note has caused some to conclude that the article was saying it was good to have sex with children, or encouraging people to do so, et cetera. It may be noted here that the article's last revision, prior to its deletion, started out with this:
"Minor-attracted person"[note 1] (abbreviated to MAP; occasionally cartographer as a dog whistle[3]) is a controversial substitute term for pedophile associated with attempts at normalizing pedophilia.[4] It has been used by so-called anti–child sexual abuse organizations,[5][6] including the controversial organization B4U-ACT,[7] which has been linked to pro-pedophile apologia.[8][9]
jp×g🗯️ 00:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I strongly suggest checking out the ANI thread regarding this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1127#Link to personal blog of notorious pedophile Tom O'Carroll. The article was created by 22spears, an editor who was blocked for pushing a pro-pedophilia POV. The only appropriate outcome of that AfD was a hard deletion + creation protection. I remain very concerned that Hawk has failed to mention this AfD and their !support of a history-retaining redirect over 48 hours after it has been brought up. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- @GhostOfDanGurney: For the record, Red-tailed hawk's comment was
Blank-and-redirect to Chronophilia#Chronophilias_related_to_minors per WP:DEL-REASON#5, or delete per the same.
[emphasis added] It'd be misleading to imply he was against deletion; it just wasn't bolded.
There's also no evidence that Red-tail was even aware of the AN/I thread in question. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- @GhostOfDanGurney: For the record, Red-tailed hawk's comment was
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Robertsky
Final (196/0/0); closed as successful by -- Amanda (she/her) 05:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Nomination
Robertsky (talk · contribs) – Colleagues, it is my pleasure to present Robertsky for your consideration. This is a candidate to get excited about. Robertsky excels in project work such as closing requested moves, executing requested move technical requests, and reviewing Articles for Creation drafts. His stats in these areas are quite impressive: 1,314 edits to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, around 4,800 edit summaries mentioning "requested move", and at least 569 AFC reviews. In addition to this, he also has content creation experience, with two good articles achieved, City Developments Limited and Goo Hara. Additionally, he possesses leadership skills, demonstrated through activities such as being on the core organizing team for Wikimania Singapore 2023 and organizing the recent Articles for Creation backlog drive. Finally, I met Robertsky in person at two different conferences, and I was very impressed with his personality and his empathy. When it was my birthday at one of these conferences, he surprised me with a birthday cake. I think Robertsky has all the qualities of a great administrator, both objectively and subjectively, and I would be honored and pleased if you would join me in supporting his candidacy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- Co-nomination statement
I've known Robertsky for a couple of years now, mainly through our shared involvement in Articles for Creation. In that time, I've known him to be a helpful editor and a frequent participant in discussions. As Novem also stated, Robertsky has a considerable amount of experience with requested moves and technical move requests, an area where the admin tools will definitely come in handy. Robertsky has also demonstrated his competency in a number of other areas, including administrator intervention against vandalism and usernames for administrator attention, with more than a hundred reports to each page. He has also demonstrated an excellent grasp of content policies through his content creation (two good articles, plus dozens of others created), along with reviewing well over a thousand drafts at AfC. I hope that you will join Novem and I in supporting Robertsky. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 01:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept this nomination. Thanks to both nominators for their kind words and support. Both have been great colleagues and friends on the project and are among the many I enjoy working with. I have two alt accounts, RobertskySemi and The Sky Bot, with the latter unused on this project (it was utilised on Wikimania wiki). I have never edited for pay, and while I have a conflict of interest with HackerspaceSG, my edits on it were mainly MOS-related, adding a navbar template, and updating geo coords. – robertsky (talk) 01:49, 27 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 see it as the next logical step in my work on Wikipedia here. I would like to utilise the admin tools further in the areas that I am currently active in: dealing with admin-locked page moves that arise from processing requested move discussions or technical move requests; blockers for AfC acceptances; dealing with revdels relating to copyright issues as I patrol new articles or reviewing older ones which may have copyrighted content introduced in the early days of Wikipedia; and vandalism on a day to day basis.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Bringing Goo Hara up to GA status is a journey that I will always remember as the article was one of the very first articles that got me hooked on contributing to Wikipedia. The near complete rewrite of Johor–Singapore Causeway was also poignant as the previous version was largely lifted from Singapore National Library's write up on the causeway. Creating Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 and developing the bulk of it was an interesting one. While there is always the inherent knowledge that the content we create here will be utilised by the masses, it is refreshing to have the article being brought up directly in my conversations with others.
- 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: Invariably, there will always be conflicts with each other when editing. At the start of my editing career, I was certainly stressed when entering into what I felt was my first ever major conflict (mainly dealing with how filmography tables should look like on Singaporean artiste BLPs). Me and another editor were having different point of views on what the table should contain. While there were other editors jumping into the conversation, it was limited and there were times I wanted to lash out out of exasperation. However, I decided to take a step back and return back to the topic when my nerves were more calm. The issue was resolved with an RfC in the end. Over time, I find myself in conflict with other editors, be it for content or for other types of discussions. However, I find myself having mellowed with each conflict. I don't take the conflicts personally, and step away for a time if needed. My current approach to understand from where the other party is coming from, especially if I am playing the role of a discussion closer, reclarify and work out to see if a resolution can be reached or further discussion with other editors would be required.
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 questions from SchroCat
- 4. Could you show what experience do you have in resolving disputes between editors?
- A: Just to be clear, Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is the stomping grounds of Robert McClenon, a different Robert.😎 Most of my experience resolving disputes between editors are through Requested Moves discussions, and some participation in AN/ANI.
- On AN/ANI, I have tried assisting editors in resolving their disputes a few times that I recall. Once, I elaborated that the burden for providing verifiable information falls on the editor even if the content was translated from another language project and was originally unsourced. In another dispute about COI and PAID editing, I elaborated that what the editor did, copying entire texts, was not fair use as claimed, and also that we are individual editors working independently of each other when they claimed there's a “Wikipedia team”. But being AN/ANI, I understand that the final closure of the dispute would be up to an admin more often than not. Hopefully though, the points I raised helped the editors involved and also steered the discussions towards an acceptable resolution.
- On the RM front, most of the discussions that I had closed were accepted (assuming silence is consent) by all parties involved. There were however some which involved further discussions post closure. One was asking for further clarification on my procedural close statement on the Biomass article, which I revised thereafter, as I decided to treat the discussion as a content dispute being resolved instead. Another was after determining a 'no consensus' on a requested move discussion on Izium mass graves based on policies. The close was reverted and a concern was raised at my talk page. I am happy to listen to the feedback of other editors, so in this case I decided to let my close be reverted and be closed by someone else, who ended up closing it the same way. – robertsky (talk) 07:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- 5. What did you learn from those experiences?
- A: I learned that sometimes a close and the discretion of a closer requires finesse, and that it is important to keep WP:NOTBURO in mind. While there are guidelines and a procedure for how to close discussions, it is important to be empathic to the participants involved. In the requested move discussion on Izium mass graves, I recognised that my close could have been premature in some eyes. In spite of the active participation, which in most other RM discussions would be a signal for closure after 7 days of discussion, it was a discussion that would benefit from a longer discourse due to the emotions that were driving the discussion. Flexibility can also be offered in other ways. While RM discussions are about article titles, it can also become a discussion about content, as seen in the Biomass article.
- While it is easy to make use of existing policies and guidelines to help to resolve disputes, how they are being used and when they are being used are important as well. It is important to communicate clearly with editors, especially new editors like in the ANI examples above. – robertsky (talk) 07:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Optional question from ZKang123
- 6. Besides edit conflicts, what other challenges have you faced in your editing career?
- A: Content wise, it is the accessibility of sources. While there is The Wikipedia Library, there are still resources that we do not have access to. Being a Singaporean, I am fortunate to have further access to other resources for free with the National Library Board (NLB) libraries here, which complements TWL's access. Nonetheless, when I wrote Mak Ho Wai at the time of his passing, the sources that I could find on him were limited as his early life and career were not in Singapore but in Taiwan and Hong Kong. Although sources on his career in Singapore were available to me through the NLB, this limited the completeness of his biography.
- Combating vandalism can be a challenge as well. Sometimes the vandalism done is quite deliberate, sophisticated, and not easy to spot. I encountered someone who tried to add in false information on Tan Kah Kee, but was backed with a source: a book published in 1970. I pondered whether to put up a request at the Resource Exchange, but ultimately I found the book in the archives of the NLB. After a trip down to the central library to retrieve the book and a verification later, the false information was removed. – robertsky (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Optional question from JPxG
- 7. 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 Goldsztajn
- 8. You have my support, I'm asking this question out of interest with regards to your views on administrator anonymity. Specifically, do you feel that administrators who have a declared public profile might find some circumstances harder to deal with, if not by necessity have to recuse themselves from certain adjudications where an anonymous administrator would not?
- A: I think even as an active editor with a public profile, there are already considerations, i.e. harassment, legal threats, societal pressure, etc, and it takes a certain amount of thick skin or zen to be out in the public. To my knowledge, there have been two attack/impersonation accounts of me made already in the course of my anti-vandalism work (the most recent one). Going public for me was a resolution to myself that I should not be an ass with other people on this project since my real-life reputation is also now tied here. Also hopefully, it is a clear indication to others that I am serious about this project and I will give utmost consideration to their words for as long as they are civil.
- While I have not yet faced a situation that has escalated to levels that threaten my real life, I think one should forgive such administrators (and editors) if they decide to pass on getting involved in certain disputes if their public profile may threaten their personal safety in real life or for similar reasons. While their insights are much appreciated, their well-being is also a priority. There’s no lack of admins and editors who are similarly competent. – robertsky (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Optional question from Brat Forelli
- 9. What is your opinion on abortion as it relates to the intersection of gun control, race relations, your own personal religious beliefs, and true ownership of the Senkaku Islands?
- A:
Discussion
- Links for Robertsky: Robertsky (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Robertsky can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.
Support
- as nom — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 01:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Ive been scouting Robertsky out for over a year now. You snooze you lose! Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Per noms. I've crossed paths with Robertsky several times and it's clear they'd make a quality admin. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Why not? Seems qualified and helpful from my interactions with them. Schminnte [talk to me] 02:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Have crossed paths several times through AfC and pages with SPI issues. I like that they are also active on other projects outside of en.Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support as nom :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support - This makes a lot of sense, and I give the candidate my full support. I've seen them around for a while, cheerfully doing helpful things to improve the encyclopedia. And although I don't think we have ever had an actual conversation on-wiki or off, I feel confident giving my support although it's still very early in the process before the optional questions have been asked. Thank you for volunteering and good luck! Netherzone (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support I haven't worked with them directly but I've run across them a few times and they always seem to know what they're doing. Excited to see more of their work in the future! Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support: Strongly support editors like this stepping up to the plate. Keep doing what you have. Best of luck! ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support - I have long considered Robertsky to be a potential administrator and have been impressed with what they've done so far. ~ Prodraxis (Merry Christmas!) 02:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Looks like a good candidate. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support: One of the easiest supports I've cast. I have no doubt of their ability as an editor and I trust them to use the tools properly and with appropriate discretion. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Support I've never interacted with the candidate but I trust them with the tools. Responses are mature and civil, which are two essential traits of a good admin. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 03:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- not jerk has clue jp×g🗯️ 03:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Seems very experienced and active. Wikipedia really needs active admins these days. Mox Eden (talk) 03:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. No problems here. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- I've had positive interactions with this candidate. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support - No concerns at all, excellent credentials, seems like a great guy to have a beer with. Brat Forelli🦊 03:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support will be nice to have another RM admin. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Frostly (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support very humble and experienced user. – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- In Favor. Sure, why not? No problems found. Good luck with the mop Robertsky! 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 03:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Okay, time to review this robertsky person. A.k.a. Robert Sim. Looking at the edits: technical move, technical move, answer question in the Teahouse, page swap, oh hey, he's the guy who helped me by moving Arabis glabra to Turritis glabra. That's not strictly Plantipedia, but I'm an honorable plant obsessed proto-Supervillain so quid pro quo and no cabal to be seen here. ;) 🌿MtBotany (talk) 03:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Leijurv (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Not a jerk; NOBIGDEAL. HouseBlastertalk 04:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- I am not familiar with the editor but their contributions are great, and their AfD participation is great. I trust that they will protect content and content creators. I also trust ingenuity as nominator and I have learned to trust Novem Linguae. Lightburst (talk) 04:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support — I have not personally run into the editor, but they seem like a diligent, competent editor who would make a good administrator. ChrisWx 🎄 (Happy holidays!) 04:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support an excellent and very responsive editor. Lightoil (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Robertsky: Wow! You finally answered my question. Maliner (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Glad to support Volten001 ☎ 05:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- I've interacted with this user plenty through AfC. Exceptional judgement and listens to feedback. Curbon7 (talk) 05:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- * Pppery * it has begun... 05:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Stephen 05:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Seen him around in RM. Appears to have a level head. Glad to offer support. The Night Watch (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support - Very exciting, and I believe I have observed some of their great work before.--NØ 06:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support emphatically! --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support no need to repeat what others have said above, robertsky is net positive. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Experienced, competent, will make good use of the tools. Maproom (talk) 08:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support I don't have any objections here, and the AfC backlog drive seemed not only successful but well-organized as such a thing could be. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- 42. 42. Andre🚐 09:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support – Meets my criteria. I've also seen the candidate around a few times and they've made a good impression. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support: not a jerk, has a clue, & per nominators — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 10:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nominators :) Sam Walton (talk) 11:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support net positive, and I admit I assumed already was an admin! -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support - from personal observation as to preliminary work and actual participation in the Wikimania 2023 - the capacity to cope with technical and people issues - is a very strong candidate for the mop JarrahTree 12:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support, I've only had good interactions with the user in RM, and I am actually surprised to learn that they aren't already an admin. — mw (talk) (contribs) 12:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Perfect candidate, can be trusted with tools. Toadette (Merry Christmas, and a happy new year) 13:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nom. — 🎄🎆 Paper9oll 🎆🎄 (🔔 • 📝) 13:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- I’ve had positive interactions with Robert at requested moves and it’s been all positive. So, why not? Best, Reading Beans (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support - Should prove to be a great admin ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support - No concerns. Scorpions1325 (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support, I've seen the candidate around and also have no concerns. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support - I see no issue. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. 141Pr {contribs} 16:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support We clearly need admins who never sleep. [9] Banks Irk (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. ULPS (talk • contribs) 17:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support - I had the fortune of meeting Robertsky in person at Wikimania 2023 alongside @Novem Linguae, I was impressed with their leadership skills in organizing the conference and have followed their work in AFC ever since, which I've also been impressed by.Sohom (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support- Another quality, net-positive candidate for the mop. Good Luck! Aloha27 talk 17:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- --Ferien (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 20:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support: able to write content, experienced in admin areas, gone above and beyond in work for the community at Wikimania and the November 2023 AfC backlog drive. No temperament issues that I can see. — Bilorv (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support! ~ Tails Wx 22:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support I am a simple man, and the guy gave me a Christmas message and a brownie. Automatic support! Joking aside, an experienced editor whose leadership came in handy during the recent backlog drive. I assumed they were already an admin, tbh. Acebulf (talk | contribs) 22:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Why not? -Fastily 23:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support, strong quals and satisfactory answers to Q1-3. ZsinjTalk 00:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 00:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- All seems kosher from where I'm standing. --Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 01:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support! :D Chlod (say hi!) 02:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Seems like an experienced editor who would help the project. Nemov (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Based on contributions: seems like a good addition. Bruxton (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Seems a great candidate and we need more admins. Bduke (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support seems like a solid candidate. TipsyElephant (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose – experienced, great track record, and I am satisfied with their answers. It would be a net positive to have them join the team. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 04:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support per editors I respect above and the editor's strong on/off wiki track record. Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Strong evidence of being a net positive. No concerns. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support - qualified candidate. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 06:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Legoktm (talk) 06:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose because I don't like it. No, of course, support. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️⚧️) 07:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Left a comment on my first article, influenced me in many. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 07:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 08:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Robertsky has my Supportsky Spintendo 11:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Vacant0 (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support, nothing objectionable with respect to this candidate. BD2412 T 13:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. I've frequently seen Robertsky in the RM space, and I've been consistently impressed with his work ethic and thoughtfulness. He'd be a great addition to the admin corps. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Net positive Josey Wales Parley 14:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Looks great in every respect. And I trust the deeper reviewing by Novem Linguae. North8000 (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support – impressive work ethic, consistently responsive, great technical knowledge, and well-versed in policy; one of the mainstays of the SG Wikimedia community. Fully confident in their ability to use the tools (and use them well). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 16:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support - Wholeheartedly. I have worked on and off with this editor for a few years now, and have always found them thoughtful, respectful and knowledgeable. When I used to work on NPP, and would notice that one of the articles was a piece which had been moved from AfC by this reviewer, I never found any issues. The fact that they were nominated by 2 editors who I have great respect for did not hurt at all. They will be a very positive addition to the admin corps.Onel5969 TT me 16:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support 💯%, valued colleague at RM. Polyamorph (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Looks okay to me. Deb (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 17:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support —MdsShakil (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Not much personal experience, but the people vouching for them are credible, and their role in the Wikimania 2023 organizing team speaks well to their capabilities, since, as an attendee, that event went so well for the first in-person Wikimania in two years, one of the largest Wikimanias we've ever had (and largest if you add the virtual participants) and one held in the middle of a large global city.
Glad to start the next hundred supports! Daniel Case (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Not super familiar with their work but once again other users I trust support them and I don't see any concerns. SportingFlyer T·C 19:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support a great candidate. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish·growths) 20:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support: Looks good to me, and I trust the supporters above. Bsoyka (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support - Qualified candidate.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support, doesn't seem likely to abuse the tools. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support - Per nom. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Per noms. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support - No reason at all to oppose. Glad to see it's still at 100%. Bringingthewood (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support – he's doing a fine job with page moves. Adumbrativus (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support - good enough Seddon talk 02:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support - I don't see anything concerning, seems more than qualified. - Aoidh (talk) 03:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. No objections. – bradv 03:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support looks good, no issues Sheep (talk • he/him) 04:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support – no concerns, I trust they'll do a good job with the mop. –FlyingAce✈hello 04:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support - good editor. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 08:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support - seems to have a clue. - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- I confess I was not familiar with this editor's work, but I have found nothing of concern, and I trust the nominators. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support He has done a lot of work for cleaning up SG-related pages and vetting through drafts.--ZKang123 (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Great work at WP:RM and WP:RM/TR ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 13:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Impressive contributions: RM, AFC, AIV, UAA... Can't find any reason to believe that Robertsky won't be a net positive. Timothytyy (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support You act here in a collegial manner. I considered you an admin anyway. You have never overstated your role, but display a calm demeanour under pressure, thus defusing any pressure. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support - Meets my criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThadeusOfNazereth (talk • contribs)
- Support thank you for volunteering and was a pleasure to bring Goo Hara to GA status! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support - Atsme 💬 📧 16:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support - I've seen Robertsky around and they seem to have a clue, good experience and not a jerk, all the usual stuff. — Amakuru (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support jengod (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Don't see any red flags. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Nothing visibly disqualifying, and the answer to Q3 alleviates any possible concerns of accountability. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Have been bumping into them for years, diligent work, never seen them engaged in anything remotely controversial. — kashmīrī TALK 18:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support I remember various helpful and friendly edits by Robertsky so I guess that he probably will be a friendly and helpful administrator. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Aoba47 (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Rcsprinter123 (collogue) 19:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hiding T 20:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support – Add this to my growing list of "I thought they were already an admin." I've only seen good edits from robertsky, and the disclosure of the WP:COI with hackerspaceSG and their inconsequential edits to the article shows the exact type of transparency expected of our mop-wielders. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support – No red flags here, Easy support. –Davey2010Talk 21:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support - I have had positive encounters with Robertsky in Articles for Creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Good candidate! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 21:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --94rain Talk 22:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Have good positive encounters and active in admin-related activities. Just a random Wikipedian(talk) 00:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- No reason not to. BilledMammal (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Should make good use of the tools. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support, good news for WP:RM. Dekimasuよ! 05:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Flipchip73 (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support - A useful addition to the admin corps. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support: An experienced, articulate candidate. Seems perfect for adminship. — Diannaa (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Couldn't find any issues. Obvious net positive. Good luck. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support; haven't interacted directly, but I do see them quite a bit. no issues here. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 17:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support - Friendly and superb editor on the website. Best of luck to you! SlySabre (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Kablammo (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. A well qualified candidate. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Partofthemachine (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support - Qualified from what I've seen and RM Definity needs the help. Schierbecker (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support - Imcdc Contact 06:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support - no serious concerns have been brought up. MaterialsPsych (talk) 07:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Quite surprising to me that here is an editor who's been around as long as i have, as prolific as he is, and i have no recollection of our paths ever crossing; *shrug* meaningless, but interesting to me. Nevertheless, as all in the Oppose section below show, no reason not to give him the mop. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 10:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 11:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Good candidate 👍 — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 14:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support—Kurtis (talk) 14:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Absolutely! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Joyous! Noise! 18:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support, this is sincerely for me of the "I thought they were already" ones. But if not, time to fix that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support. File this under "pleased to meet you". It doesn't happen often, but here is a well-qualified RfA candidate whom I never heard of until this RfA. But everything checks out for me and I'm happy to support. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support samee converse 22:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support bit late to this but oh well. blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 00:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support saw your name popup a lot in the recent changes list. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Have met Robertsky in person, as well as observing the on-wiki work for many years. Risker (talk) 04:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Supportas per nom and what I've seen over at Teahouse and the like. Honestly, thought you already were an admin! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Has done great work on- and off-wiki, a pleasure to work with. --Canley (talk) 09:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support They have done some excellent work for Wikipedia. Strongly support them becoming an admin. Tomatarto 09:23 1st January 2024 (UTC)
- Support positive overall impression and nothing I've read or seen since this RFA has begun has changed that. Skynxnex (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nominators and good answers to questions. DanCherek (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support. RM has a need for more interested administrators, and Robertsky has demonstrated competence and staying power. Thank you for volunteering! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support - pile-on per nominators, editing history, and answers to questions. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nominators. The person who loves reading (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support if no good reason to oppose has been found at this late juncture, I think this is a safe place to end up. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Shuddetalk 12:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Modussiccandi (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support No big deal. Garion96 (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support with no concerns. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support the answers are good enough for me.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 20:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support answers look good, and Robertsky seems like a good influence on the project Frzzl talk; contribs 20:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support no concerns. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support, excellent candidate. Glad I spotted this RFA just in time to get a vote in. -- asilvering (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Seems like a suitable candidate. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 22:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support. After seven days, nobody has made the slightest case against. That by itself says something about the candidate. BusterD (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support No concerns. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- SilverLocust 💬 00:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
General comments
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/No_badgering.svg/190px-No_badgering.svg.png)
- Noting that, currently, this is a 100% UNBADGERED RfA -- there are no opposes or neutrals with arguments in the replies underneath them. Perhaps if we keep it this way we can set a new record? jp×g🗯️ 03:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Once there is an oppose, it'll be badgered don't worry.ULPS (talk • contribs) 03:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)- None of us have crystal balls but, let's hope we can keep the support rate 100%... There's still six days left and who knows what could happen? 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 03:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- It would be an amazing thing indeed if there were any opposes and they went unbadgered. Will not hold my breath. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- If this continues to be a chill RfA (a la WP:Requests for adminship/Trialpears), might toss in a (somewhat tangential) question on candidate's experiences or thoughts on WP:MRV. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 10:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Eagerly awaiting someone at hour 20 on day 6 saying "What is your opinion on abortion as it relates to the intersection of gun control, race relations, your own personal religious beliefs, and true ownership of the Senkaku Islands?" jp×g🗯️ 06:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- LindsayH: Fyi, we don't have any opposition yet. Maliner (talk) 10:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hey! Don't jinx it! QuicoleJR (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed but, so far so good! It's New Year's Day and only two days to go! 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 04:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hey! Don't jinx it! QuicoleJR (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Now is the time for me to ask the admin candidate
"What is your opinion on abortion as it relates to the intersection of gun control, race relations, your own personal religious beliefs, and true ownership of the Senkaku Islands?"
[Joke] ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 05:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- LindsayH: Fyi, we don't have any opposition yet. Maliner (talk) 10:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Eagerly awaiting someone at hour 20 on day 6 saying "What is your opinion on abortion as it relates to the intersection of gun control, race relations, your own personal religious beliefs, and true ownership of the Senkaku Islands?" jp×g🗯️ 06:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- If this continues to be a chill RfA (a la WP:Requests for adminship/Trialpears), might toss in a (somewhat tangential) question on candidate's experiences or thoughts on WP:MRV. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 10:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Suppose now is the time to throw in a last-minute critical comment and get jumped on by like 100 people for it?(Just kidding, couldn't resist.) – Epicgenius (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
About RfB
Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.
The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.
Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert
{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}
into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.
At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.
While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}}
on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.
Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.
Current nominations for bureaucratship
Related pages
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Debriefs – RfA candidates sharing their RfA experience
- Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship
- Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies
- Requests for self-de-adminship can be made at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard.
- Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
- Requests to remove the administrator access of another editor due to abuse may be made at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, but you should read Wikipedia:Administrators § Grievances by users ("administrator abuse") and attempt other methods of dispute resolution first.
- Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship – Failed proposals to create a community-based process for de-adminship processes.
- Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship
- Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship
- Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates
- Nominator's guide
- Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination
- Requests for other user permissions can be made at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.
Footnotes
- ^ Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
- ^ Voting was restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
- ^ The initial two discussion-only days are a trial measure agreed on following Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial). It applies to the first five RfAs opened on or after 24 March 2024, excluding those closed per WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW, or until 25 September 2024 – whichever is first.
- ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
- ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.