Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tails Wx

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

Tails Wx

Final (143/35/10); ended (withdrawn by candidate) by — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) at 21:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination

Tails Wx (talk · contribs) – I would like to present to you Tails Wx today for your consideration. Over the last three years, Tails has worked in a variety of areas of the encyclopedia, with a focus on making sure there is high quality experience for our readers. This work has included content creation, with 4 Good Articles and has written DYKs about a handful of other articles. It has also included work to ensure spam and copyright material is deleted, while also contributing to places like the Administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard. Besides offering a friendly and collaborative presence with others, Tails also has the sense to know what he doen't know which is an important quality for any administrator. This is why several people have approached him about running for adminship, on and off wiki. I hope you will join me in supporting Tails Wx for adminship. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Co-nomination statement

Tails is an editor who excels in a number of areas. They have experience in content creation, with dozens of articles created and four good articles (plus another three nominations), in addition to working in New Page Patrol and Articles for Creation. I've found their work in admin areas, like anti-vandalism, speedy deletion, and Articles for Deletion to be extremely accurate as well. Tails is always patient and helpful, especially to new users through their work as a mentor. I believe that they have both the skills and temperament to make them a good administrator. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 17:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept this nomination! Thanks to the nominators for their kind words and assistance. I have never edited for pay, and my two alternate accounts are Tails Wx9 and Tails Wx1, with both also noted on my userpage. ~ Tails Wx 14:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I have seen amounting oppose votes over the past few days and appears likely that this will not succeed. Thus, I hereby withdraw this nomination. I’d like to thank the nominators and to everyone for their participation in this RfA, I appreciate it! I will definitely learn from the opposing votes. ‘Til next time. :) ~ Tails Wx 21:53, 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: As an administrator, I’d like to assist and take action in several administrative areas around Wikipedia that I’ve already requested as a non-admin, including candidates for speedy deletion, copyright violation revision deletion requests, and both the Usernames for Administrator Attention noticeboard and the Administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard, the latter area of which I’ve made more than 400 reports on.

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

A: In terms of content creation, I’m proud of the articles that I have written. One example is 2013 Midwestern U.S. floods, an article which has been promoted to GA, and has appeared in the Did You Know section of the Main Page. I’m also proud of the effort that I’ve put into other articles, including December 2017 North American winter storm, November 2013 North American storm complex, and March 2023 North American winter storm, all of which are currently Good Article Nominees. Outside of content creation, I’m proud of the work I’ve done tagging spam and fixing copyright violations.

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: Although I’ve been in several conflicts and have had users causing me stress, I don’t get involved with conflicts and receive stress from other users often, aside from the harassment from vandals. However, if it happens, then I always try to keep a cool head and assume good faith. For example, one instance occurred in January this year, this discussion started after I did not complete a thorough BEFORE on a subject that was nominated for AfD; thankfully, I’ve learned from this experience. If the conflict is stressful enough, brief breaks and spending some time from Wikipedia are necessary.

---

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 LindsayH

4. Hi Tails! You have my support, but can you tell me which you think is the most important of our WP:PAGS

A: Thanks for the support! Of course, they’re all important, but one stands out to me as the most important of Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines: Verifiability. Verifiability is one of Wikipedia’s core content policies, alongside no original research and neutral point of view. All content in mainspace should be verifiable with a reliable source. This especially applies to biographies of living persons. Myself, I have encountered unsourced material and have added sources, and I believe that all material in mainspace should be verified.

Optional question from AirshipJungleman29

5. Of your four listed GAs, you are the clear primary author only for 2013 Midwestern U.S. floods. Do you think you could take this article to FA status (you can say no! you'll likely have my support nonetheless), and if so, which parts of the article need improving to meet the FA criteria?

A: I believe the article could be improved further prior to the article being nominated for FAC. Some sections could definitely be expanded or merged into a different sub-section (for example, the North Dakota section on that article). Taking a look at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, the article satisfies most criteria, though I believe the article’s lead and prose could be improved. I plan on nominating the article for FAC after those issues are fixed!

Optional question from Mach61

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

A: I am unfamiliar with arbitration procedures; thus I will leave it to other administrators in enforcing ARBECR.

Optional question from Cryptic

7. Why did you have your userpage deleted in September?

A: I'm going to be honest here, I understand it wasn't that long ago, but I do not remember why I had requested deletion of my userpage.

Optional question from EggRoll97

8. You stated your intention to work in CSD and copyvio revdel. How would you respond to a user who questions a deletion you make (either to a page or a revision)?

A: I’ll listen to the user who’s questioning my page or revision deletion’s concerns, as I’m open to any concern or question an editor brings up following a page or revision deletion. I’d also respond in a civil, respectful manner while also assuming good faith. I’ll be happy to restore the page if the user concerning my page or revision deletion’s explanation is correct, otherwise I would explain why my deletion rationale was valid.

Optional question from Sdrqaz

9. Hello, Tails. Looking through your use of speedy deletion tags, you have sometimes tagged pages under both U5 and G11, while on other occasions you have used the criteria individually. Could you go through your understanding of the distinctions between them?

A: Sure! G11 applies to pages that are unambiguous advertising or promotion. U5 applies to only pages in userspace that contain information or writings that are not closely related to Wikipedia’s goals; as Wikipedia is not a web hosting service. G11 differs from U5 in a number of ways. G11 applies to basically any namespace, including articles, drafts, and userpages. U5, however, only applies to user space only, and not articles and drafts noted above. G11 is also used for advertising/promotion, as noted above, while U5 applies to pages in userspace that do not adhere to what you can have in your userpage. For example, I would tag both G11 and U5 criteria if a userpage contains excessive or inappropriate personal information that is unrelated to Wikipedia and the page is promoting something (e.g. person, company) and would need a fundamental re-write.

Optional question from Banks Irk

10. I'm somewhat disturbed by your answer to Q3. You say that you are occasionally stressed by interactions with other users, especially when being harassed by vandals. I looked through your edit summaries mentioning vandalism, and see a relative handful of instances of vandalism on articles you actively edited. These all seem to be garden variety mischief, and hardly anything I'd characterize as targeted or harassment or anything that could or should be stressful. If you are that sensitive to these minor inconveniences, what makes you think that you can deal with mop responsibilities without being overwhelmed?

A:.

Optional question from Red-tailed hawk

11. I note that you've expressed an interest in performing copyvio revision deletions. Should you become an admin, to what extent do you plan to become involved with resolving copyright problems and performing contributor copyright investigations, aside from evaluating and taking action on RD1/G12 requests?

A: Should I become an administrator, I will likely be involved in resolving copyright problems and performing contributor copyright investigations soon. If I had to start, give or take a week after becoming an administrator, then I would start at a lesser extent due to the fact that I’ve only made one report at copyright problems and have never been involved in contributor copyright investigations. I’ll also reach out to copyright clerks and other administrators experienced in those areas first to have a hold on how to handle requests. In other words, I'll likely be involved, but slow and steady first!

Optional questions from Indignant Flamingo

12. I was surprised to see your answer to Q9. So, a followup: what's an example (hypothetical is fine) of a userspace page that could be deleted under G11 but not U5?

A: Sure! Here’s content on a different user’s page that would qualify for G11 but not U5 (Disclaimer: This is a hypothetical userpage):

Please check out World No1 Wikipedian’s userpage. They are one of the best Wikipedians, so you should give them a big, shiny barnstar, and please thank all of their edits they’ve made. Also, please review their 3 Good Article Nominations, they’ve worked so hard on those articles and reviewing them would not be a good idea. They also have been awarded the “#1 Best Wikipedian” by me, so you should check out their amazing edits and give them a barnstar as soon as you can.

This would qualify for G11 because it only serves to promote a person (Wikipedian), but it does not qualify for U5 because the userpage is promoting something that is not unrelated to Wikipedia.

13. In your opinion, how does WP:SUSTAINED apply to articles about large storms that get large bursts of coverage right around the time they happen, but not afterward?

A: Articles about large weather events that receive large bursts of coverage when they occur and do not receive coverage afterwards is not sustained coverage. These types of events do not attract attention over a sufficient, significant period of time, and notability may not be established if only brief bursts of news coverage exists. Little to no coverage after a weather event has concluded is not sustained coverage. One article I’ve created likely passes SUSTAINED: July 2023 Northeastern United States floods, continued coverage exists after the flood event ended, especially in the aftermath of the flood event.

Optional question from Spicy

14. What was the purpose of User:Sarrail/Administrator Map?

A: Originally, I created it in showing support and appreciation of administrators by creating a hand-drawn map full of streets named after current administrators at that time. I nominated it for deletion because it felt...unnecessary.

Optional question from Banks Irk

15. You've changed your username at least twice in just 2+ years, and stated in 10/22 that you'd been editing "several years". Why the multiple usernames, and what other undisclosed usernames have you edited under?

A: I have only used the accounts that are disclosed here. I've started editing in September 2020 and that is multiple years of editing. And for the username changes, I disliked my previous usernames, and this username is the one I like most.

• To be clear, you didn't disclose any of your prior usernames. You don't see that as a problem or think that anyone else might see that as a problem? Banks Irk (talk) 03:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, there are no prior usernames to disclose. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

That is categorically false. Banks Irk (talk) 03:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

As I noted on my user talk, I've never heard of undisclosed usernames being used the way you are using it. Only in the sense of Wikipedia:Clean_start#Requests_for_adminship. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I've never seen an instance where a RFA candidate has changed their username and failed to disclose upfront the prior names, quite a part from "clean start" let alone twice in this short of time. Banks Irk (talk) 03:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Banks Irk, See their user page on Meta-Wiki. Scorpions1325 (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Optional question from 115.97.61.186 (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

16. You're in a RecentChanges, walking along in the sand, when all of a sudden you look down and see several newly created user accounts. Their names are as follows:

• User:Mark at Microsoft
• User:Microsoft Official
• User:Maodidnothingwrong

A: The first username, "Mark at Microsoft", despite including a company name, the username indicates that a single person is operating the account, therefore that username is acceptable. The second username, "Microsoft Official", is an unacceptable username because it unambiguously represents a company name, thus I would soft-block that account. The third username, "Maodidnothingwrong", is an offensive username and warrants an immediate hard block.

Optional question from Fastily

17. You haven't answered a number of the questions above (which, at the time of writing are Q's 6, 7, 10, & 13). Could you comment why you haven't done that and/or if you believe these are unfair questions?

A: I'm still draftifying answers for questions 7 and 13, I apologize for the long wait. I decided to pause on answering Q10 and instead focus on answering other unanswered questions first, while I have answered question 6 above.

Optional question from Scorpions1325

18. I was surprised to read your answer to question 12. Does this mean that Wikipedia:WikiProject Oshwah should be deleted?

A: No. That page is intended for humor, not spam or promotion.

Optional question from JoelleJay

19. Our policy is that articles must not be based on primary sources. How do weather articles that are almost entirely sourced to primary news reports and governmental databases satisfy this requirement?

A: They do not. I’ve taken a deeper, in-depth look at November 2013 North American storm complex and found that the article relies excessively on primary references that were released throughout the event. The removal of the tag was clearly a misunderstanding, on my end, believing that government databases are not "primary" sources. That said, I am not opposed to a merge to 2013–14 North American winter#Late November storm complex, and I also won't be opposed for Late February 2022 North American winter storm to be merged to 2021–22 North American winter#Late February winter storm. That article itself is a complete mess, with the article containing basically the same referencing problems as the other article noted above. Both articles excessively rely on primary references and do not satisfy WP:SUSTAINED, with a completed in-depth BEFORE search showing no secondary references following both events other than the Weather Prediction Center’s review of the event following the November 2013 weather event, with that source itself not going to establish notability.

Optional questions from Bruxton

20. I have been trying to figure a way to vote for you. I am seeing a concern that you have had at least 5 different usernames in just three years (we do not know if there are more). My question is why the constant username changes?

A: My first username change was due to privacy concerns. I’ve since edited as: Severestorm28, Sarrail, and now, Tails Wx. I’ll be honest here: my username was changed to “Sarrail” because “Severestorm28” felt…silly. I then disliked "Sarrail", so, I was then renamed to “Tails Wx”, a username I like and do not plan on changing it in the foreseeable future. I have edited under four usernames on this account and have not edited on other accounts other than my alternate accounts, both of which are stated here and on my userpage.

21. Do you have anything you want to say to the oppose voters that might convince them to support?

A: I’ll say this: proclaiming that another Wikipedian is awesome is ‘’not’’ G11 nor does it qualify for U5. I’ve read a couple of the opposing votes and acknowledge that it was a mistake on my end to presume how another Wikipedian is awesome is spam or advertising/promotion. The username changes are stated above. And, regarding the copyright concerns, I knew what I was doing, I knew www.weather.gov was a source from the public domain, I just did not provide attribution for the text copied from the public domain material. I am understanding I should have done so earlier; I admit this is my fault for not providing attribution, with thanks to Callitropsis for doing so. I will take Spicy’s opposition into interest: I will be cautious and will be reaching out to other administrators in situations where I am uncertain should this RfA be successful.

Optional questions from Bilorv

22. Do you agree with Callitropsis that your edits to 2013 Midwestern U.S. floods added close paraphrasing to the article? If so, how will you avoid such issues in the future?

A: I will acknowledge that this is entirely my fault; it was close paraphrasing from a source that was in the public domain that I did not provide attribution to. I will avoid such issues in the future; taking steps to write in my own words, avoid copy-and-pasting, provide source attribution should the article retain text from a source in the public domain, and always-always double-check to make sure there are no copyright violations from copyrighted works and sources.

23. Do you agree or disagree with this argument: "Earwig shows 3.8% likelihood of copyright violation, so the edits are not copyright violations"?

A: I disagree. Even though it’s a 3.8% likelihood of a copyright violation, it’s rather plagiarism from a source from the public domain without provided attribution.

Optional question from BeanieFan11

24. You state that One article I've created likely passes SUSTAINED: July 2023 Northeastern United States floods, continued coverage exists... Am I misreading this, or are you suggesting that the rest of the 35 articles you've created do not pass SUSTAINED?

A: Actually, what I meant to state was that it was one example of my articles which pass SUSTAINED. 2013 Midwestern U.S. floods is another example of satisfying SUSTAINED; there’s several references after the event that cover it. I believe there to be sustained coverage in nearly all of my created articles, and I plan to go back and address the ones that I think don’t.

Optional question from Barkeep49

25. What from this discussion has changed how you will act as an editor and if you pass as an administrator? Barkeep49 (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

A:

Optional question from Robert McClenon

26. Can you please give one or more examples of your experience in conflict resolution on Wikipedia, addressing either content disputes or conduct disputes?

A:

Discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. As nom. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Aha! I knew it! The Night Watch (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Bagsy last podium place! --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

   No concerns. 🎄Cremastra 🎄 (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC) moved to Neutral.

4. Support Been wondering if this would happen. On the basis of who the nominator is, is sufficient reason for me; but let's add my basic position and the fact that (good heavens!) the candidate is willing to admit error and commit to changing their approach.... Certainly. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 16:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Support Finally – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
6. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
7. Support Was on my list of people to contact in the next month, I'm glad to have been pre-empted. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
8. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

   Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

9. Support. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
10. Obvious support, looks like a great addition to the mop corps. ~ Prodraxis (Merry Christmas!) 16:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
11. Support, I've run across them and their work a few times but haven't interacted with them much. That said what I've seen has always been professional interactions and quality work. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 16:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
12. Support- You betcha!   Aloha27  talk  16:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
13. Support, I do not see any issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
14. Support No issues, seems like a net positive! -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
15. Support, unflailingly nice fella from what I've seen Mach61 (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
16. With pleasure. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
17. Support Have had great experiences with candidate’s work on Wikiproject Weather. JayTee⛈️ 17:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
18. Always been an excellent editor. ✶Quxyz✶ 17:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
19. This is the candidate, net positive. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
20. Seen him around and I'm glad to support Volten001 ^☎ 18:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
21. Support Can't recall editing in the same areas as them but other users I respect and trust have already thrown in their support. SportingFlyer T·C 18:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

    I've re-reviewed this RfA and am writing to reiterate my support. SportingFlyer T·C 19:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

22. Support — Sadko (words are wind) 18:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
23. Strong support - One of the most wholesome and friendly people that ever volunteered for Wikipedia, furry, aroace - that's more than enough proof that Tails would be the perfect admin! <3 🖤🤍💜 Brat Forelli🦊 18:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

    Support. LGTM. Moved to neutral Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 18:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

    Support on their user contributions, not following the crowd. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 19:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC) Neutral now.

24. Support per nom, no problems here. BD2412 T 19:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
25. Trusted and kind editor, no issues here. Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 19:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

    One of the very best weather editors we've got. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 19:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

    I stand by this statement, but concerns have since come to my attention such that I am no longer able to support. --Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

26. Oppose Too experienced to be a administrator. (On a more serious note, I've had nothing but positive interactions with the candidate and have consistently been impressed by the breadth of their knowledge. I honestly sometimes forget that they are not a admin.) Sohom (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
27. Support, no issues. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 19:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
28. as nom — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
29. Support. I have seen them do a lot of good work around here. DrowssapSMM 20:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
30. Support: able to create content, experienced in administrative areas, a polite communicator and can't see any temperament issues. — Bilorv (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

    Struck pending answers to questions 22 and 23. I understand the candidate has been asked many time-wasting, irrelevant questions, but I believe these questions are significant. — Bilorv (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

    Unstruck now they've been answered. Thank you to Callitropsis for the excellent analysis, which is completely correct on the facts. However, this is one of the most minor copyright issues possible—marginal CLOP on a referenced PD text—and the candidate's response is polite and accepts that there is an issue to be avoided in future. They just about passed the trap in Q23: the issue is plagiarism and not copyright violation. I would have liked them to also say "Earwig cannot tell whether something is a copyright violation or not—only a human can, which is why human oversight is needed". (While we're here: Earwig can't detect all copyright issues for foreign or offline sources; it's not fully accurate on close paraphrasing; low %s are sometimes copyvios, as that's how probability works. And if a human's job was just to read the % and act on it then we'd have an EarwigBot that removed text automatically, but we need humans for a reason.) — Bilorv (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

31. Support. Another "you're not an admin?!" moment. SWinxy (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
32. Support: Seeing a decent amount of content creation and a lot of solid anti-vandalism work. Looks like another editor who can be trusted to wield the mop with an expectation of some on-the-job training. Glad to see Big Weather get another admin. Best of luck and happy holidays! ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

    Having read the opposes, I feel it is necessary for me to add that an editor admitting that cruel and crass vandalism wears on them is actually refreshing. I would prefer an admin who takes a three-week vacation to destress than one who grows increasingly cynical or lets their anger boil over. I'm glad Tails Wx knows their limit–its plenty high to qualify them as an admin. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

33. A name well known to any regular AIV admin. I've actioned a fair few of those 400 reports! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
34. Support. Nice guy and a great editor, even if they are a Bears fan 😉 ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
35. Support: Has a clue, not a jerk & per nominator. Happy holidays — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 21:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

    Reaffirming support: The opposes do not sufficiently demonstrate that this candidate would not make a reasonable adminstrator. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 19:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

36. I'm not familiar with this candidate, so I checked a random sample of his contributions, and found nothing of concern.—S Marshall T/C 22:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
37. Support wholeheartedly! Tails Wx helped me out very much by getting my user talk page archived a while back! Super thankful and think Tails Wx would a great addition to the admin team as I've encountered them quite a bit during my antivandalism work. Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
38. Support good candidate. HouseBlaster^talk 22:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
39. I've seen the candidate around and think he's been doing good work. No objection from me. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
40. Support A good new admin is a great Christmas gift! Tails does plenty of good administrative work and still finds time for content creation. He will make a great admin. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
41. Support Thank you for volunteering your time w Wikipedia! jengod (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
42. Support no concerns Sheep (talk • he/him) 23:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
43. Oh wow. I didn't know you were running. I was recently thinking to myself, "Wouldn't TailsWx be a great admin?" and now here's my time to Definitely Support ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 23:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
44. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
45. Support: no concerns at all. Lightoil (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
46. Glad to support. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 23:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
47. 'Support Tick all the right boxes, and none of the wrong ones why not? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
48. Very Strong Support. I've been waiting for this day to come... Even better as it's Christmas! Definitely supporting. Good luck with the mop my (two-tailed) friend! 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 00:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
49. Support: I've known Tails for a while now and am very glad to see this. Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 01:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
50. Support: I'm quite pleased to see this. I've worked quite a bit with Tails and I trust them to use the tools in a productive way. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
51. Frostly (talk) 01:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
52. I like that the candidate is not last to ivote at AfDs and they usually get it right. I do not like that all of the DYK and GA experience was very recent- which makes it look like plan-for-RFA-box-checking exercise. The candidate has 275 edits to ANI and it looks like they started by closing many discussions. I see that they previously edited under a different name and changed it in 2023. I also see that they recently began participating in discussions at ANI as part of discussion. I land in support because I trust the nominators.Lightburst (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

    FYI: I see the candidate participated in the Optional RfA candidate poll October 5, 2022. It does appear that they were checking boxes after hearing from editors in the poll. Lightburst (talk) 19:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

    The candidate has changed their username at least twice. The statement at the linked poll that in Oct 22 they had been editing "a few years" suggests that there may have been other undisclosed prior accounts beyond the two prior renamed accounts. Banks Irk (talk) Banks Irk (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

    See talk page (2 question limit) for further discussion. Lightburst (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

53. Support - Imcdc Contact

    I salute you, user @Tails Wx: – had you achieved one more In the news entry in the third round of this past WikiCup, you would have eliminated me, the eventual champion! ;) BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

54. Support Last administrator of 2023, and decent activity in making articles/adminstrative actions. Just a random Wikipedian^(talk) 03:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
55. Saw this before it was transcluded and was still only #61. Very happy to see this and a strong support from me! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 04:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
56. Support I've experience their work and can say that they would make a great admin. Good luck Tails! ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 04:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
57. Support - no concerns! 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
58. Stephen 04:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
59. Support. Per noms. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
60. Support Has my trust from quality interactions at ITN and AIV. Spencer^T•C 06:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

    Support Seems very experienced and nice. Mox Eden (talk) 07:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC) (moved to Neutral)

61. Support Has shown a need for the tools and the temperament needed to use them appropriately. Wikipedialuva (talk) 10:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
62. Support I was considering nominating Tails myself until I heard that an RfA was already in the works, so an easy support from me. Sam Walton (talk) 10:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
63. Support – easily meets my criteria. They're also way more knowledgeable in regards to weather than I could ever hope to be. I look forward to passing the baton onwards! :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
64. Support no concerns here. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
65. Support being an admin needs to be easy and this is a Christmas Day. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
66. Support Not too much experience with this editor, but none of it bad, and the people with more experience vouching for them have a lot of credibility. Merry Christmas! Daniel Case (talk) 16:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
67. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 17:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
68. Hell yeah, Tails is pretty much the definition of a good editor, also it’s Christmas so 🤷🏻‍♂️ yeah. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (he|she|they) 17:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
69. Support—And a happy New Year! Kurtis ^(talk) 18:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
70. Support Per noms. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

    Good answer to a question they probably weren't expecting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

71. Support - great editor. Merry Christmas! ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 20:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
72. Support Leijurv (talk) 22:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
73. Support No red or yellow flags. Has a clue and obvious net positive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
74. Support EggRoll97 ^(talk) 01:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
75. Support Lots of positive points, and no red flags. Hopefully you can keep the storms on the Admin noticeboards more under control. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
76. Why of course. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
77. Support Tolly4bolly 03:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
78. Support I rarely vote on RFAs, primarily because often they're going in the direction I'm happy with so see no need. But I'm so utterly opposed to Banks Irk's oppose and reasoning and vaguewaving that I'm coming in here. -- ferret (talk) 03:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
79. I have seen this editor around a lot and trust their judgement. Curbon7 (talk) 04:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
80. Support. As a former admin and long time editor, seems an ideal candidate. Bduke (talk) 04:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
81. Support. Trustworthy to take up the tools. Andre🚐 05:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
82. In an effort to bring a cute smile to the trusted nominators, Barkeep49 and Ingenuity, of course, to Tail too. Maliner (talk) 08:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
83. --Ferien (talk) 11:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
84. Support A little newish but I trust that they'll (just) work in areas where they are confident in. Unexplained deletion of their user page gives me pause but I assume that someone who can see it would have raised a red flag if suitable. In response to an oppose comment on stress, if one wants to do things correctly and somebody (who sounds at least somewhat credible) says that you did something wrong, and you are a good listener, that situation IS stressful and a good sign that those qualities are in place. North8000 (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
85. Support To counteract the extremely belligerent Oppose. As The Blade of the Northern Lights says, that sort of reaction is what makes RfA so stressful; not warranted. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
86. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 16:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
87. Support Opposes thus far are extremely unconvincing and have in fact prompted me to put my vote here. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
88. Support – Per ferret, mostly. I think the candidate is qualified to wield the mop, and it boggles the mind that such gross assumptions of bad faith as shown in the questions and the oppose section are still allowed at RFA. –FlyingAce^✈hello 18:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
89. Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyous! (talk • contribs) 19:10, December 26, 2023 (UTC) Joyous! Noise! 19:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
90. No concerns. Good luck with the mop. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 19:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
91. Support – seems like a really awesome editor; i am voicing my opinion because oppositions seemed to not contribute to the discussion and were unconvincing. Pauliesnug (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
92. Support – Solid judgment with respect to which submitted optional questions are best simply ignored. Plus the good answers to the basic questions, and the many endorsements of other editors. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
93. Support. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 22:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
94. Support - No significant issues have been brought up, and I am unconvinced by the opposition. MaterialsPsych (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

    In light of the recent surge in opposition, I return here to reiterate my support for the candidate. I also object to the opposes based on Q7; unless if the candidate had their userpage deleted to hide something like a Nazi flag, a long creed in support of Nazism, or something comparable to that, I don't think it's anyone's damn business as to what was on the userpage before it was deleted or the reason why the candidate wanted it deleted, nor do I think it should have any bearing on their suitability to be an administrator. MaterialsPsych (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

95. Support, seen around AIV, good work. Definitely competent to wield the mop and I appreciate the eagerness to learn new areas of the project to ensure appropriate use of the tools. Zsinj^Talk 01:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
96. jp×g🗯️ 03:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
97. Support. No problems here. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
98. Support Elli (talk | contribs) 03:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
99. Support - Welly, welly, well. Let's do this like Theo from Die Hard. Twas the day after Christmas and not an editor was stirring except this Tails Wx person who's coming in here with no Plantipedia edits in his most recent 500. Competent editing, but the arrogance on this guy not placating the all important plant obsessed editor block of voters before RfAing. You're on notice buddy. ;) 🌿MtBotany (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
100. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
101. Support — You will be an amazing admin! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
102. Support — A highly experienced content creator, vandal fighter, and new page reviewer. All-in-all a wonderful editor, who would do great as an administrator. ChrisWx 🎄 (Happy holidays!) 04:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
103. Support — I wish you luck in the midst of yet another soap opera. Bringingthewood (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
104. Support Candidate has solid judgement. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 10:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
105. Support Experienced editor. Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 16:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

     I wasn't planning on participating in this RFA, but now I have to vote here to counteract any opposes based on the nominee's response to Q3 ... considering that there now seems to be at least one. Mental health is very important, and I find it almost shameful that there is opposition to the fact that the nominee knows when they need to take a break. Having the expectation that someone needs to be committed to being in a state of readiness to edit/fix Wikipedia at all times is ridiculous, which seems to be the case for opposition to mental health breaks. Steel1943 (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

     Moving to neutral. Steel1943 (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

106. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
107. Support. Not a jerk, has a clue. I also find it mind-boggling that there are opposes based on the fact that the candidate knows when to take a step back. Not everyone handles things the same way, or even consistently. An otherwise-minor attack could be very stressful on a bad day, while a horrific attack may bounce on a good day. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
108. Support as a definite net positive. (Some really disheartening oppose stances too. Yowza.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
109. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
110. port to the Sup – net positive; user is experienced, trustworthy, has a good track record and a valid need for sysop tools. The oppose votes do not really make any compelling arguments. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 19:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
111. Support. I've seen Tails Wx around enough and I think he'd make a good admin. (And I like the username, too!) --Sable232 (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
112. Support. I've seen them around, and the nominations and answers to questions check out OK for me. I've given some thought to David Fuchs' oppose, which strikes me as reasonable. But I'm also satisfied from what I'm reading that the candidate will learn what needs to be learned. And I want to say, very emphatically, that being willing to take a break is a good reason to support, not to oppose. We want admins to leave a given task for another admin to do, rather than do it poorly themselves. Anyone who is seriously involved in the project, and who is self-aware, is going to get stressed from time to time. Recognizing it in oneself, and stepping away from the keyboard, is both necessary and admirable. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
113. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 01:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
114. strongest Support possible. in this age of terminal online-y-ness knowing when to log off is positive. plenty of departed-under-a-cloud editors and a few admins too boot would still be with the project today if we all took breaks instead of reliving the Verdun. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
115. Support. Appears to be an extremely adept editor with little conflict and much experience. In questioning, the candidate made it clear when they did not know the answer to an issue and knew when it was necessary to take a break. Generally seems to be deserving and worthy of administrator status. Some of the oppose points detail unwarranted stress and less than perfect editing, but stress is universal and recognizing when and how it effects you is of the utmost importance and adept writing appears present if not outstanding in my vision. Dionysius Miller (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
116. Support, meets my criteria of not seeming like they'll abuse the tools. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
117. Support, seems like a level-headed and dedicated user. Generalissima (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
118. Support per nominators and several editors I respect above. I'm not thrilled about the ridiculous behavior from Banks Irk in this RfA—we should be aiming to curb that whenever possible. No candidate deserves that. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
119. Support. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
120. My tail wags in Support.  Spintendo  05:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
121. Support – robertsky (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
122. Support --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 08:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
123. Support --Vacant0 (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
124. Support Net positive Josey Wales ^Parley 14:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
125. Support ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
126. Support – does great work at countervandalism, CSD/AfD, and NPP; friendly with new users; willing to learn; able to manage their emotions well. I'd like to see more GA and hopefully FA experience as it'll help them develop a more well-rounded understanding of content policy, particularly as they look like they'll be active in areas directly related to content (e.g. deletion, copyright), but I'm confident enough that they'll be able to apply the tools sufficiently well at this stage. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 16:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
127. Support. Jaireeodell (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
128. Support. I've never had anything but positive interactions with Tails, and I believe they would make a great sysop. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 20:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
129. Support - more admins is always a good thing.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
130. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
131. Support Partofthemachine (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
132. Support - I have not previously encountered this user, but a review of their contributions shows nothing amiss. Furthermore, I respect their decision to not answer the hopefully just poorly worded but potentially deliberately disingenuous question Q10. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
133. Support - Nothing in the opposes convinces me not to support. Seddon ^talk 02:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
134. Support – I trust the nominators. The objections raised by the opposes voters are unconvincing. – bradv 03:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
135. Support. I have seen this user around making great contributions. I understand the concerns raised by the opposers, but the arguments cannot outweigh the benefits Talix Wx can bring to the community as an admin. Not answering the strange and unnecessary Q10 (with an unclear intention) is not a problem for me. Timothytyy (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
136. Support no reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
137. Support- I find no reason to oppose. Admins who are active aganist vandalism are necessary nowadays.Imperial^[AFCND] 14:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
138. Support - Meets my criteria. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 15:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
139. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
140. Support; there is very little reason to oppose. The candidate seems to be willing to work with others and admit error, as per the co-nomination statement, the answer to question #6, and Lidsay's support vote. Someone flexible like this will unboubtedly make a good admin; the possibility of improvement far outweighs the minor concerns brought up by the opposition. The faff about username changes seems irrelevant to me. Theepicosity (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
141. Strong support - Tails Wx seems to have a strong grasp and formative experience with Wikipedia's principles and content policies, and all interactions (and contributions), that I have reviewed, seem also to be overwhelmingly in line with conduct policies. Good work against vandalism, and frankly, very professional altogether. I see that some concerns have been raised about stressful situations, but I honestly find these mostly inappropriate and undue; research, passion projects, and responding to vandalism is stressful, it is difficult and challenging. Stressful situations, and editorial mistakes are experiences that Tails very evidently has learned from, and that should be a point in Tails' favour, not the other way around. Wikipedians are also human, and we are not voting in the election of the Platonic ideal of a stoic philosopher-king, but a lovely contributor and editor whose interactions, contributions, and person are all thoroughly wholesome, as far as I can discern. Volpi🦊 18:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
142. Hiding T 20:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
143. Support. Brows raised by O section; however, far too many good supporting editors to refrain from agreement with them, especially when we need good admins. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 21:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strongest possible oppose. Not impressed by the prevarication and avoidance of pointed, relevant questions. Serious reservations about the candidate's judgement and temperament unsuitable to admin tools. Banks Irk (talk) 03:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

   There's no requirement that a candidate must answer all of the optional questions (see Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates#During your RfA#2), and there's certainly no requirement that a candidate must answer the questions in the order in which they come in.

   At the time of my writing this reply, the candidate has answered one of your questions (#15), but not your other (#10). As for your follow-up, the candidate hasn't edited at all in the time since you asked it. And according to the candidate's timecard we're now outside of his usual active hours, so an answer to either #10 or your follow-up is unlikely for a while as the candidate is very likely asleep.

   I would gently suggest that you consider striking this vote for now, to allow the candidate time to both consider the questions that have so far been asked, and optionally answer them in whatever order they want to answer them in. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

   I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request. Means "no".Banks Irk (talk) 05:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

   When people talk about RfA being a horrible and broken process, it's this sort of entirely gratuitous belligerence which they have in mind. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

   Badering of oppose voters is also one of the frequently raised concerns in those discussions. "Just sayin'", as they say. Imagine if all the support people with vague, questionable, or no reasons were also pressured in this manner.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

   I don't think the problem is the question not answered, but the questions that have been. Banks clearly is quite passionate about this RfA - see their swearing over use of revdel below - and so I don't see them changing their oppose if/when Tails were to answer the questions out there and I think this suggestion to them that they strike the vote is going to do more to raise temperatures than lower it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

   Mmmm, possibly. Though I'd typically read Not impressed by ... avoidance of pointed, relevant questions as being dissatisfied by the unanswered questions. But I can see that the request has been rejected, so there's no real sense pressing the point. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

2. On the basis of their content contributions. I don't think something like 2013 Midwestern U.S. floods is particularly a good example of a user demonstrating understanding of policies and guidelines in writing quality content. The first section is arguably a close paraphrase of a government source, and fails to actually introduce the topic in the body. It's filled with trivial details and relies almost entirely on news reports of the time. There's no larger discussion of why the topic matters, especially with the benefit of ten years of potential sources. Admins do not need to be master editors, but since they will be evaluating editors on the basis of their content contributions, I'd like to see better from the candidate. This is a TOOSOON situation for me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 04:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose Willbb234 17:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

   @Willbb234: May I ask why? 🎄Cremastra 🎄 (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

   @Cremastra: Should I strike this as invalid? I mean, it doesn't even have a reasoning. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 23:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

   @The Corvette ZR1: Leave it be. You shouldn't be striking anything unless someone has been blocked as a sock or their vote was purely disruptive. Noah, AA^Talk 23:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

   And even then, non-‘crats shouldn’t be striking others votes. There are also support votes with no reasoning, and we don’t strike those either. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

   "Support" means an agreement with the rationale presented at the beginning in support of the candidate. If someone is against, they should also be required to present a rationale. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

   How come, Willbb234? Why can't you elaborate? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

   There are at least five supports for this RfA that do not contain any rationale, just as this oppose contains no rationale. Yet, only the person who is making the oppose is being challenged about it? If Willbb234 wants to oppose, let them oppose. There is no requirement that they include a reason for the oppose. Further, it's not having an effect on this RfA anyway. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

   Asking someone to elaborate is not challenging them, nor is it preventing them from opposing, nor is it telling them a response is mandatory; it is asking them to elaborate. The reasons that unexplained opposes draw more attention than unexplained supports are obvious and have been discussed in dozens of venues on WP. 108.35.216.149 (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

   Supporting requires no separate rationale, as it's a support to the nomination statement which already contains extensive rationale for the candidate. An opposing !vote needs a well laid-out rationale. Otherwise I suggest such !votes be crossed out. RfA is to be a discussion, not voting. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

4. +1 The notion that run-of-the-mill vandals may stress you to the point where you need to take a break just strikes me as a little odd. You're gonna get the occasional death threat. You're trying for a position that is supposed to be the thing that protects other users from the same abuse. I also find it a touch odd that vandals, which most people summarily disregard as teenage trolls, is the most extreme level of conflict managed, other than a short AfD and a short subsequent discussion. That's not really an example of when something got in your craw and you managed it.
   I find it somewhat off-putting at best that the candidate wants to contribute to copyright issues — an area where I'm not totally uninitiated — and to be honest, sod all, I still don't fully understand it. I'm not sure anybody does. It's not necessarily a thing where "I dunno. I'll figure it out and ask people." really works at the sysop level. You have to be at least initiated enough to tell whether that other person is within the realm of reasonable argument. The candidate had a file on Commons deleted just a few months ago with (admin only) the source listed as "Discord" and the author as "JayT", with no other information at all about where or from whom. That doesn't inspire supreme confidence WRT copyright. Just taking stuff from a chat room seems pretty far up on the list of things you learn WRT copyright. GMG^talk 00:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

   @GreenMeansGo: My view is that if an editor needs to take a break, for any reason, then they should certainly do so – far better to have cool-headed, competent editors working 75% of the time than stressed-out, over-anxious editors working 100% of the time. I also find your comment You're gonna get the occasional death threat. extraordinarily dismissive of a very worrying matter that, if it occurred, would be relayed to Trust and Safety. 🎄Cremastra 🎄 (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

   Cremastra, You know that not every oppose !vote needs to be bludgeoned? You can just allow people to hold their valid opinion without disagreeing with them all - particularly when it's fairly obvious this RFC is likely to pass without troubling the 'crats too much.

   As to 'the occasional death threat' comment, I don't see it as being dismissive, but more an acknowledgement that this is a fact of life for admins (this is one example that flashed up on my watchlist in the last week alone). It's really not a question of "if it occurred": it happens and Admin candidates need to be aware of some of the unwanted pitfalls of having the mop. - SchroCat (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC) (Addendum: The example I posted has since been oversighted, but that may go to show why you are unaware that such threats are made: such comments tend to be removed extremely quickly from general view - but that doesn't mean they do not happen at all. - SchroCat (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC))

   If the user has a "valid complaint" ("a legally binding/sound complaint"), shouldn't that be grounds for not accepting the new admit? I don't have a dog in the fight (I'm not voting), but doesn't it seem reasonable to look at every complaint to verify that they aren't valid? TlonicChronic (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) x 2 I'm not sure what you mean by a "valid complaint" (no one has used that term here so far - as always, RFA is a judgement call), but GMG has left a valid comment with nothing uncivil or false about the candidate, so I'm not sure why the need for the additional dramah stoking. When 'Northern Lights said of oppose #1 "When people talk about RfA being a horrible and broken process, it's this sort of entirely gratuitous belligerence which they have in mind", that can (should) be applied to those who feel they have to bludgeon the good faith !votes of others. That's often what makes RFA a 'broken process': it does little but ensure some editors won't !vote oppose for fear of some sort of group-bullying pile-on, and if we're driving away reasoned !votes that contain explained rationales, it's little wonder RFA is one of the weaker points of our system. (This is going well off a valid discussion on Tails Wx's suitability, so if a 'crat wants to move it to the Talk page, I'm OK with that). - SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

   1: Black-and-white fallacy. This is not a case of 'either person A is right or person B is right'. Two editors can hold differing/opposing views without either being 'wrong' (or right for that matter). However, it is unnecessary to always present your opinion about others' opinions. Cremastra asserts that [m]y view is .... Let me stop you right there. Who cares? No reasoning person will replace their view with your view, particularly when it fails to address or even acknowledge the other's concern. All this is is (likely unwanted) badgering. Leave others to hold their own views. The use of a ping to be insufferable is additionally grating.

   2: Wikipedia isn't a court of law, so what do you mean by 'a legally binding' complaint (this isn't a proper term for that matter)? Mr rnddude (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

   I'm not WP:BLUDGEONING (I have made 2 comments on this page, apart from my !vote), I'm voicing my concerns. 🎄Cremastra 🎄 (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

   So that's 50% of the opposes then! It's fine: I'm just voicing my concerns on bludgeoning, and disagreeing with your interpretation of part of GMG's comment. - SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

   Agree with SchroCat; this was a civilly-worded oppose in direct response to a candidate answer. The opposer is entitled to their opinion, and should be allowed to express it without badgering. As also noted above, nothing here is "legally binding." This is a discussion about granting a few extra tools to a volunteer editor on a volunteer website, nothing more. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

5. Agreed with @David Fuchs. The candidate's answer to Q13 suggests they believe their other storm articles don't meet SUSTAINED but still represent the best of their mainspace contributions somehow? I also have concerns about their understanding of PRIMARY and NOTNEWS; as noted elsewhere, they removed my "primary sources" tag on November 2013 North American storm complex despite every single source still being from 2013 news reports or gov databases (while the date at the top of the Erdman weather.com article says July 2016, that article was actually published November 2013, as can be seen by the reproduction of an early version here and partial reproduction in the 2014 weather.com source, by the the source code of the article itself, and by this archived screenshot from 11/28/13). It is common for (poor) journalists to re-publish material as "recaps" that was originally part of a running commentary. That does not make it sustained coverage. I'm curious if they would be open to redirecting all of these articles. JoelleJay (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
6. Reluctantly, I must oppose per David Fuchs, JoelleJay above, and per the answers to questions 13 and 19. I don't love being in the same section as whatever Banks Irk was smoking, but I have serious doubts about the candidate's abilities and understanding with respect to writing articles, and that means I cannot support their candidacy at this time. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Not impressed with the answers to questions, which at best strike me as too bland to indicate their understanding of the relevant policies, and sometimes even have a rather evasive feel. Particularly think the answers to Q9 & the follow up Q12 are completely missing the point. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
8. Oppose with regret. When I first started writing (crappy) articles in 2019, I did so with the intention of creating articles for every major commercial airliner crash in the world. In late 2020, I became more knowledgeable about our core policies, including WP:GNG. I realized that many of these Soviet-era plane crashes do not meet WP:GNG even though I find them very interesting. Nobody who has just fully grasped WP:GNG should be handed the mop. The slow response to some of these questions combined with the answers to questions 12 and 13 also suggest to me that the nominee is not familiar enough with some of our other policies as well. To me, this is a rare instance of WP:TOOSOON that time can fix. If the nominee studies our policies and guidelines more carefully, they should try running again in a year. Scorpions1325 (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

   The essay intended by Scorpions1325 and David Fuchs is WP:NOTQUITEYET. The linked essay is about article notability. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

    Self-trout I should have known because I saw an administrator make the same mistake at a failed RFA around 3 years ago. Scorpions1325 (talk) 03:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

   I didn't pay attention to the CCI-aspect of this case, despite participating in CCI myself. Unfortunately, I do agree that this is one of the more mild cases of plagiarism, particularly the first paragraph.

   This reminds me of the time that I tried to write American Airlines Flight 476 by fooling Earwig. In the end, I added a PD template to the citation so that I could add as much information as I wanted to without feeling dishonest. I am not at all saying that the nominee was definitely doing this in bad faith, or that they tried fooling Earwig, but I am not confident that they understand WP:CLOP. I apologize if I come off as harsh, but I don't think you are ready yet. Scorpions1325 (talk) 08:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

9. Reluctantly and with a great deal of regret, I find myself here. I've reviewed the passage David Fuchs highlighted and I agree that it is close paraphrasing. To illustrate the similarities I've reproduced the text from the source and the article below, with duplicated text bolded.
   Source:

   The upper-level trough of low pressure that had previously plagued the Great Lakes and Upper Midwest temporarily shifted to the northeast and was replaced by a strong ridge of high pressure across the southeast U.S. This provided a deep-layer southwesterly flow from the Southern Plains to the Great Lakes. Not only did this allow temperatures to climb above normal into the 70s, but it also helped transport large amounts of moisture northward into the area. Upper-air soundings conducted by NWS Lincoln showed precipitable water values rising to around 1.50 inches by Thursday morning.

   A cold front slowly pushed eastward into this increasingly moist airmass by Wednesday, April 17th; however, the boundary gradually became parallel to the southwesterly upper flow and could no longer move eastward. As a result, the front stalled near the Mississippi River. Showers and thunderstorms developed along and ahead of the stationary boundary and repeatedly "trained" (i.e. moved along the same locations) Wednesday afternoon and night. Many areas along and west of the Illinois River experienced nearly non-stop rain and thunder for several hours on Wednesday, with rainfall amounts reaching the 2 to 4-inch range. The showers and storms finally got a push eastward Thursday morning: however, they weakened considerably as they approached the I-55 corridor.

   Article:

   An upper-level trough which was situated over the Great Lakes and Midwest regions moved into the Northeastern United States before being replaced by a strong ridge of high pressure over the Southeastern United States. This resulted in moisture being transported to the Great Lakes and Midwest regions, and upper-air weather soundings conducted by the National Weather Service Lincoln, Illinois, showed precipitable water values around 1.50 inches.

   On April 17, a cold front approached the Midwest, pushing eastward towards the transported mass of moisture. However, the frontal boundary became parallel to a southwesterly upper flow and stalled over the Mississippi River. Trained thunderstorms along a quasi-stationary boundary front produced heavy rainfall across the Midwest before the storms headed eastward. The day after, an outflow boundary associated with the cold front caused additional thunderstorm development across the same areas that were saturated the day before. This resulted in flooding across east-central Illinois and western Indiana before an upper-level trough pushed the cold front eastward.

   This is one of the more mild examples of close paraphrasing that I've seen and is the sort of thing that is easy to do inadvertently if one is editing with the source open in another tab. It's something I've done myself in some of my earlier content work, and I'm in the process of combing through edits I made a decade ago to root out such issues. Unfortunately, this example goes beyond WP:LIMITED because it contains unique creative expression that is duplicated from the source. For example, the use of however in the second sentence of the second paragraph of the article is not necessary to convey the underlying information and is therefore not protected by WP:LIMITED. The sentence fragments that begin with "soundings" are almost identical as well, and the underlying structures of the first paragraphs of both the source and the article are very similar. The source is public domain so the passage is not a copyright violation, but it is plagiarism because Tails did not tag the source with {{source-attribution}} to indicate that some of the text is derived from public domain material. I'd probably mark this edit with a Y if I came across it in a CCI. To be perfectly clear, I do not believe this was done intentionally and I am absolutely not implying any sort of dishonesty on Tails' part.
   In my view, this example is unfortunately disqualifying for any prospective admin who hopes to work in copyright. CCI and CopyPatrol are chronically backlogged and in desperate need of more hands, which means that admins working in copyright are under immense pressure to get things right because we just don't have the human resources to double-check their work. An admin who declines a {{cv-revdel}} request of a closely paraphrased passage could do real damage to the project if the original author stumbles across it and files a DMCA takedown notice. I'm not saying that this is likely to happen, but it's not a risk that we can afford to take, however small it is.
   I really wanted to support this RfA. Tails is a hardworking, pleasant editor who is an absolute joy to work with and is quick to take feedback on board and learn from mistakes and past experiences. They're exactly the sort of person who should be an administrator and I know that they could be a tremendous asset to the project in that role. I view the example of close paraphrasing cited above to be disqualifying as of now, but certainly not in perpetuity. I'll eagerly support if Tails comes back in a year or two with a better understanding of copyright and more experience under their belt. As a side note, I'm supposed to be on a wikibreak right now but I'll make an exception to respond as needed to any follow-ups to this oppose !vote. — Callitropsis🌲[formerly SamX · talk · contribs] 06:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

   @Callitropsis: As someone who opposed at least partially on copyright concerns, this actually isn't a concern. The source is NOAA. It's public domain. You can quote it verbatim if you want. There may be an argument that it isn't the best way to present the content in an encyclopedic tone, but it isn't a copyright issue. PD is PD. You don't actually have to do anything. There is not and cannot be anything like an attribution requirement. GMG^talk 14:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

   Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Copying_material_from_free_sources requires attribution even if the content is in the public domain. This might be an obscure bit of policy but I'd expect someone who intends to work in copyright areas to know this. Spicy (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

   Meh. It's mostly a courtesy on our part though. PD is PD. It's not a copyright issue. The only real issue is relicensing something in a way that requires attribution, which even close paraphrasing would probably yield legit, given a substantial original contribution. Even verbatim quotes from PD material licensed to require attribution would simply render the CC invalid. Still not really violating anything. I've always seen something like Template:Source-attribution as a nod to whomever might try to find the text online and not understand that it was PD. GMG^talk 14:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

   Callitropsis explicitly says that this is not a copyright violation, but an instance of plagiarism, and is completely correct. The issue is not based on the law, but on Wikipedia guidelines. — Bilorv (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

   Not for an issue of paraphrasing when the source is cited and is PD. It's taking the piss a bit when you're arguing over things like "1.5 inches" or "Mississippi River". Come on now... GMG^talk 17:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

   I think WP:LIMITED might be a consideration here - how many ways can you rewrite the quoted text before it becomes inaccurate or implies things not in the source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

   Yes, close paraphrasing is still an issue of plagiarism. This is not a case of WP:LIMITED, as Callitropsis has already explained, as sentence structure and conjunctions should be changed. — Bilorv (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

   You know, my understanding is that plagiarism requires a bit more similarity than that. Merely swapping out words wouldn't make it not plagiarism/copyvio, but here, where the chronological order is the main similarity, I have some doubts. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

   I concur. It's paraphrasing, no doubt, but it's loose paraphrasing. @GMG: Passing other peoples' work as own is not OK, even when that work is not copyrighted. Ever sat a university exam or published an academic article? — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

   I agree with my colleagues above that this is not an example of close paraphrasing. Still, if the opposer wanted to argue that point, they ought to remove common location names like "Great Lakes", "Upper Midwest", "the southeast U.S", "northeast", or "the Mississippi River" from the comparison. I'm not sure what else we would call the Mississippi unless you're looking for someone to rewrite that as "the big river that runs north-south down the center of US". I also disagree on the inclusion of isolated subject-specific terms like "upper-level trough", "cold front", "strong ridge of high pressure", or "upper-air soundings". As I understand it, these are all accepted by and widely used by weather-specific reliable sources (even the specific phrase "strong ridge of high pressure" gets nearly 20,000 hits on Google, and two subject-specific terms embedded within it get far more). Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

10. Oppose generally unimpressed with the candidate’s answers to optional questions which are pretty generic, often slow and don’t really give me any confidence in how they’d deal with other editors. Overall I feel this nomination may be premature. Mccapra (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
11. Oppose. The question answers veer from generic/skimming to kinda evasive. I'm not instilled with confidence about either the editor's communications skill (a big necessity for admins) nor their grasp of various complex policy-application questions (ditto). I also share some of the copyright-related concerns (which I might not, since WP's copyright approach is unnecessarily paranoid, but for the fact that the candidate specifically singled it out as an area of admin-work interest). I have no doubt that the candidate means well, is a good contributor, and is at WP for the right reasons, but that's not really sufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
12. Oppose been thinking on this one for awhile. Like the others above, I'm unimpressed with the answers to the questions. RfA questions are an excellent opportunity for any candidate to showcase their understanding of our policies/guidelines/best practices and prove to the community that they can keep a level head in a high pressure situation. Instead of doing these things, Tails Wx is dodging perfectly reasonable questions, acting avoidant, and appears to be caving under pressure. With all due respect, that's not the sort of behavior or character I want to see in prospective sysop. -Fastily 08:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
13. Weak oppose Unfortunately share others' views on question answers (SMcCandlish, etc.) and best content contributions (David Fuchs/JoelleJay). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 09:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
14. Oppose (Moved from neutral). Like others above, I'm not happy with many of the answers given, and the examination of the close paraphrasing problem is equally troubling. Admins should not just know what the policies are around copyright, but know how to avoid it when writing. WP:NOTQUITEYET for me, but a year or so down the line may be different. - SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
15. Oppose per the above concerns about giving canned answers to questions that seem to show they don't really understand the nuances behind them. For example, their answer to Q12 implies they would delete User:RexxS per WP:G11 because it "promotes" Geogre and Phaedriel. The supports are unconvincing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
16. Oppose per the above since the answers to questions indicate a lack of understanding in policy. Noah, AA^Talk 11:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
17. Oppose per copyright concerns raised by Callitropsis and GreenMeansGo, and the answer to Q12 implying that they would delete someone's userpage as spam for saying nice things about their wikifriends (!) I don't think the candidate's understanding of policy is quite where it needs to be yet. If this passes, which it looks like it will, I hope they will be cautious and seek advice from other administrators in situations where they are unsure. Spicy (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
18. Oppose I had concerns early on that Tails didn't seem to quite have the application or maturity or focus that I like to see in an admin. As various concerns have been raised it is becoming clearer to me that this is a possible WP:NOTYET situation. I don't think any one of the concerns is in itself serious, it is just the accumulation of them - the little details such as the unresolved issue regarding being stressed by vandals, the curious squirming in inventing a scenario to overcome the little error regarding G11 but not U5 - both situations it seems to me are minor errors of misspeaking, which happens to all of us - it's how we deal with these things when they are pointed out that matters, and a) avoiding the issue and b) creating a future unlikely situation to explain/justify past errors are not the sorts of behaviours I want to see in an admin. "Oops, I made a mistake - I won't do that going forward" is what I want to see. That gives me confidence. I want all users to learn from their mistakes, not repeat them. I really expect that as standard from an admin. The answers and the hesitations I'm seeing here are doing the opposite of giving me confidence. And while the renaming of their account is a personal matter, along with the decision not to reveal that there had been past names, along with the decision to have their userpage deleted three months ago and the inability to remember why, it adds to the feeling of lack of certainty and confidence that I get from Tails. A driving examiner looks for knowledge, awareness, and confidence before giving someone a driving license. And I feel the same here. I'd like to see more certainty of knowledge, more awareness, and more confidence before we give Tails their admin license. SilkTork (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
19. Oppose for reasons ranging from copyright concerns (a no-no in any admin) to the oddities highlighted on the talk page. Possibly NOTYET; possibly not. ——Serial 14:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
20. I don't find the answer to Q7 to be credible.
    There's plenty of reasons that would've been acceptable. "Privacy reasons" would have elicited an apology; while I didn't see anything in the handful of revisions I compared to the recreated userpage, I didn't view anything remotely near all 500 of them. (I'd have interpreted leaving the question unanswered as the same, and apologize by email instead.) "To get rid of the vandalism in the history" would have been acceptable, if perplexing; while present, it was mild, sparse, and no more recent than January. "There was some silly stuff early on that I wanted to put behind me" would have been a-ok too. Even "I knew the redirects from my previous usernames would get deleted too, and I was hoping to avoid mention of them at my upcoming RFA" would've gotten some points for honesty and audacity.
    But even nearly a day after he's answered the question, I'm unable to make myself believe he did so honestly. One doesn't ask for their userpage to be deleted and then just forget why in so short a time. And if I can't make myself trust a candidate's answers in their RFA, even after a concerted effort to do so, I can't trust them as an admin either.
    Even in the alternative, if Tails Wx really doesn't remember why and I'm wrong wrong wrong, it doesn't speak well of how well he'll be able to hold himself properly accountable to inquiries about his own deletions. Of course I won't be able to immediately remember why I deleted a particular page three months, or even three days, ago; I've got to look at the deletion log and deleted version first, and if it's more than a few days old and not especially remarkable I'll have to reconstruct my thought process rather than remembering it directly. But people don't delete their own userpages after reading them just once, either, as one does with a draft or article you find in AFC or NPP or CAT:CSD.
    Oh, and there's also this from last November, which is still too recent for an admin candidate planning to work with copyright infringement. I hadn't been planning on raising the issue (not least because I can't see the image itself - not a Commons admin), but can't let it slide after the plagiarism brought up above. —Cryptic 15:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
21. Weak oppose (flipped from support), unfortunately. There seems to be several issues that put in question Tails's ability to perform well as an administrator. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
22. I'm not investigating the talkpage oddities but I will throughly look at the FAQ:

    • Content creation is not very important for adminship, but I'd want a bit more of that. I can swallow it, but errrm, there should be a bit more of either that or NPP/AFC experience which the candidate doesn't boast about
    • Q6 is an honest answer (good) but one which is VERY bad for an admin candidate. For one thing, admins are supposed to enforce rules in tough areas and this candidate admitted they don't know how ArbCom interacts with admins and orders some action. It's also a bad answer because that's a poster-child case for applying WP:IAR, as our main goal is to create an encyclopedia (something you IMHO understand better with more long-haul projects) and this question is about a good newbie creating a neat article, so I have no indication how they are going to treat those who potentially could be new long-term users.
    • Q7 answer is very weird, but whatever. Amnesia isn't necessarily something I'd want to see in an admin, but I don't want to come off as ableist, so I'll let it through. And I'd rather attribute it to amnesia than to malice.
    • I don't like admin candidates not answering questions, so ignoring Q10 is another demerit in my eyes. IMHO you can try to avoid conflicts and do less controversial admin stuff (though again, admins are not limited to revdel areas and this is a bit of a stress job) but do answer questions.
    • Q11 is also honest, but we really need admins to enforce behaviour guidelines. You will have to do it sooner or later.
    • Q13 is worrying, because in my reading the answer implies that other weather articles Tails created probably do not satisfy SUSTAINED.
    • Q16 is a good answer, to Tails's credit.

    In total, I think the assessment I have to give is "not good enough". Nope. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

23. look, i couldn't care less about the previous username stuff. what gets me is question 13...

    One article I’ve created likely passes SUSTAINED

    only one?

    i was waiting for the response to question 21, but unfortunately this wasn't addressed. ltbdl (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

24. Oppose regretfully. The answers to many of the questions are not what one would expect from an admin, particularly Q6 and Q7.The copyright concerns raised by Callitropsis, GreenMeansGo, and Cryptic are troubling, indicating they will not be sufficiently competent in dealing with copyvio. I very much respect the nominators positive experience of this user and their work in some admin areas, and so for this reason I'm leaning towards WP:NOTQUITEYET. Polyamorph (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
25. Oppose regretfully. I think they are a good editor who has improved the encyclopedia and has a pleasant disposition. I don’t think I’ve ever opposed a candidate before, however this nomination gives me pause. Something doesn’t sit right with me about the answer to Q7 in particular, but also Q9 and Q14 and so many changes of usernames. Not a good fit to work on copyright matters, at least not now. I agree with others that this may be a WP:NOTYET situation, but also they may not be a good fit in the long term, I’m sorry to say. One of my key criteria is trust, and I don’t think the candidate has the maturity (and possibly temperament) to be trusted with advanced tools. Netherzone (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
26. Oppose - wanting to work in copyright areas while still not grasping the basics is a problem. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
27. Oppose I find the copyright issues especially concerning, especially for someone who wants to work in that area. Might be a NOTYET, but I'd need to see improvement in their understanding of copyright first. Intothatdarkness 18:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
28. Oppose - seems like a nice person, and has impressive nominators. However am unimpressed by the low-effort and occasionally evasive replies to several of the questions. Communication is an important part of the admin role, even where you disagree with the questioner or think the question is trivial. Add the concerns over the level of content contributions and understanding of copyright issues, and we end up with a regretful no. -- Euryalus (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
29. Regretfully Oppose editor is clearly a net positive to project and I hope they continue to stay involved regardless of the outcome of this RfA. I am concerned with their understanding of copyright, unwillingness to answer why they requested userpage deletions or renames in recent times. Q19 indicates user's willingness to learn and admit their misunderstanding of policy, and is promising for me, that in future they may make a good admin, but right now is not that. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
30. Clearly a well-meaning and productive editor on a growth trajectory. I think they can learn more about speedy deletion rationales. I think they can learn how to put things in their own words and attribute properly. I think they can learn to apply policy/guidelines to their own work. I think they can learn how to communicate directly, and without prevarication, to avoid the appearance of dishonesty. But all of that learning is in the future. They are not ready to be an admin now. That said, if they take "becoming a better editor" rather than "becoming an administrator" as their target, they might well find themselves unlocking both achievements sooner rather than later. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
31. Moved from support with great regret. The second part of GMG's oppose, where they mentioned that an image uploaded by Tails to Commons had been deleted for insufficient licensing (and sourced from an online chat room), was immediately worrisome to me, though I held off on re-evaluating my vote at the time. Couple that with the close paraphrasing issues detailed by Callitropsis, and additional image concerns brought forth by Cryptic... I just can't corroborate these as fitting for an administrator who plans to work in the field of copyright. As Shushugah mentions above, Tails' answer to Q19 bodes well for him taking these concerns on board and using them to improve his understanding of copyright going forward. However, I would need to see demonstrated proof of better understanding in this area before I could feel comfortable supporting again. --Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
32. With regret I am moving here from support. I believe that becoming an admin is no big deal, and that the RfA questions are, or should be, the most trivial part of the process; but reading through the whole page I find myself agreeing with others that NOTYET. My overall view approximates that of Euryalus. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
33. Oppose, and I find myself generally agreeing with Indignant Flamingo above about NOTYET and especially their first sentence: Clearly a well-meaning and productive editor on a growth trajectory. I have no doubt that Tails Wx is capable of being a future admin. As an aside, I find the username and Q10 arguments to be unconvincing. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 20:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
34. Oppose I've sat on this vote for a day; I wanted to reread the comments here, especially the support votes. Unfortunately, my views remain unchanged. Others in this oppose section have highlighted responses to questions and I concur with those comments. One response not discussed in much detail, that struck me, was Q6. In Australian parliamentary tradition, there's an expresssion, a "Dorothy Dixer", a question asked by a government backbencher to a minister. Q6 seemed one of those - by following the link and spending all of about 1-2 minutes of reading, there's a clear text that provides the answer: Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. It's a relatively easy judgement that is being asked - do you keep the high quality article or not? Generally speaking, I would expect all admins to be able to make that judgement - it does not appear to me to be at the higher end of complexity, there's certainly contexts that could sway a decision either way. Even if the response had been "I might keep, but would seek another admin's view" this would be much better than the current response (I'm unfamiliar with this, it's someone else's problem), which appears to show only the most limited attempt to assess the question being asked. Yes, we want admins who are cautious and will build trust, but we *require* admins who show analytical skills and can apply this to the work. These might be signs of inexperience and time will potentially resolve the issue. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
35. Oppose per various concerns, cited by others, regarding understanding of policies, guidelines, and best practices. The good news is that this problem is easily fixed by spending some more time in admin areas (especially at a more in-depth level than anti-vandalism), paying attention to how admins make our decisions and to what decisions garner controversy or get reversed. I hope to be able to support the candidate in 6–12 months. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 21:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

#Neutral First of all, don't let anyone tell you that getting stressed out by vandals makes you unfit to be an administrator. I did WP:RCP from 2020 to 2021. Some of the edits I asked admina to redact were genuinely horrifying. Nonetheless, I am concerned by the lack of answers to what I consider easy questions. I will make my final decision when the most recent question is answered. The deleted userpage also concerns me. Scorpions1325 (talk) 06:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I am leaning towards oppose now. The answer to question 9 does not satisfy me. Scorpions1325 (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Scorpions1325: Could I ask which part of the answer isn't satisfactory? Is it something to do with the use of U5 and G11 together on the same user page? Nythar (💬-🍀) 09:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Nythar, Forgive me. I meant to say question 12. I am sorry I took so long to reply to you. It was 2:00 at night where I live.

I don't think that a userpage stating how awesome another Wikipedian is qualifies as spam. Scorpions1325 (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I feel like I have no choice but to oppose. Scorpions1325 (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

#I'm quite swayed by GMG's and Dave Fuch's rationales, and the answer to Q6 does not fill me with confidence. - SchroCat (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Moved to oppose. - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

1. While their answer to my question was acceptable, the issues raised on two of the areas they plan to work in (copyright and speedy deletion) brings me back to neutral. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Neutral (reluctantly moved from support): the concerns listed by opposers above make it difficult for me to fully support this candidate. It feels like a WP:NOTQUITEYET scenario. However, I'm still on the fence, so I'm sitting in neutral, not joining the oppose section. 🎄Cremastra 🎄 (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Neutral; moved from support. With the copyright issues raised by the oppose !voters, I cannot in good faith support this. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 15:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
4. (edit conflict) As like the above, I'm moving from support to neutral after wasting taking my time to read the oppose votes more thoroughly, and they bring up a lot of valid points. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
5. Neutral (moved from support) The concerns brought by the opposers (close paraphrasing, low stress threshold, a lack of understanding regarding policies and guidelines, possible undisclosed usernames, etc.) has left me doubting his ability as an admin, but it is not enough for me to oppose so I will leave it as neutral for now. Mox Eden (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
6. Neutral after moving from support. I generally lean toward supporting most experienced users at RfA and trust and agree with many of the current supporters, but I'm generally unimpressed with the question answers given. I've moved to neutral after reading many of the oppose/neutral comments above, and they bring some valid points to the table. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 16:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
7. Neutral (moving from support). The answers they have given after my initial support have demonstrated that their understanding of policy is not yet good enough for adminship; I'm still not comfortable opposing. AryKun (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
8. Neutral Some answers to questions make me hesitant. --94rain ^Talk 19:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
9. Neutral. (Moved from "support".) The growing oppose section has some valid concerns. I'd rather just not have an opinion registered on this RFA anymore. Steel1943 (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
10. Neutral. Unconvinced. Answers read as if they had been written by AI. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

General comments

• The Q10 from Banks Irk seems to be the opposite of good faith, and appears to be an attempt to mock Tails for finding conflicts he got involved in stressful. Look at the wording here - Q10 dismisses these conflicts as "garden variety mischief" and nothing "that could or should be stressful". So Tails can't handle being admin because he feels stress? This is toxic, and such questions should not be allowed in RFAs at all. Brat Forelli🦊 15:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  I am not mocking the candidate. I am dead serious. Perhaps it is you who should assume good faith. Banks Irk (talk) 15:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps I should. I am sorry. Brat Forelli🦊 16:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  There's plenty of targeted harassment if you look hard enough. Just in deleted, unsuppressed page titles starting with his username, there's (Redacted), and there's considerably worse where the logs were suppressed but the deleted revisions remain normal-admin-visible. —Cryptic 21:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  Might I suggest not posting attack page titles at an RfA? firefly ( t · c ) 21:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm waiting for an answer to my question. If the answer is "Oh, no, I'm a targeted victim who's completely stressed me out by it." I'm voting "No", though it will be overwhelmed by the "Yes" votes. And I have other concerns as well; there's more going on here beyond the surface. Banks Irk (talk)` Banks Irk (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  And I have other concerns as well; there's more going on here beyond the surface.

  ??? ltbdl (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  Usually when people say this they’re implying sockpuppetry or offwiki conduct. Mach61 (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  wouldn't be an rfa without one of those. ltbdl (talk) 01:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Cryptic: I am removing and redacting your links to the targeted harassment because a couple of them are extremely inappropriate and fall under WP:RD2. By reposting them here, I feel that we may be inadvertently perpetuating the harassment. Please do not restore them. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know what you intended to do here, but it totally f#ck@d up the edit history. undo it or fix it. Banks Irk (talk) 03:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  that's how revdel works, y'know. ltbdl (talk) 03:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  Please keep in mind WP:CIVIL. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, you're right. That was a bit rude. Banks Irk (talk) 04:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  Not to bloviate moronically about a totally unrelated pedantic issue, but

Moronic bloviation about unrelated pedantic issue
what does it mean for harassment to be "targeted"? Isn't all harassment targeted? That is: someone making an article titled "BITCH!!!!!" is not harassment, it's just profanity, whereas "JPxG IS A BITCH!!!!!!" would be harassment -- but how would it be harassment without being targeted?

• jp×g🗯️ jp×g🗯️ 04:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  You perceive one of the cores of my question. Does the candidate perceive typical, even persistent quotidien tomfoolery petty juvenile vandalism as "harassment" that causes them stress? Banks Irk (talk) 05:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  "Special:RandomRootpage/User IS A BITCH!!!!!!", maybe? (Sorry, couldn't resist...) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

---

@AirshipJungleman29: I'm curious about your Q5. In what way is understanding the difference between the GA and FA standards a factor in deciding if somebody should be an admin or not? RoySmith (talk) 19:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

RoySmith, see the talk page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

---

FYI, people: I dunno why y'all are getting your knickers in a twist over Banks Irk's comments/replies, etc; they've only been editing about a year, give 'em the laxitude a noob is due when they jump in the deep end and realise the water has started turning a funny color around them. Season's leakings! ——Serial 04:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

According to our respective logs, I've edited six months longer than you. Respect your elders, junior. Banks Irk (talk) 04:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

In any case, you have only seriously been editing for about a year pal. Don't muck people about at RfA; not just the candidate is under stress, but a lot of people are putting serious thought into the candidacy. You're just wasting people's time. ——Serial 05:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

This is not a path you want to go down. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Are we engaged in a length measuring contest? GMG^talk 19:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Yikes... definitely not the response you should be giving when someone is sticking up for your right to post comments that others view as unhelpful and antagonistic. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@HMiJ, an excellent way of expressing it. +1 ——Serial 15:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I took it as an attempt to match the tone of getting your knickers in a twist rather than a genuine "stay off my lawn". Barkeep49 (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

You may very well be right, thanks for pointing that out. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

For more visibility, I proposed a merge for November 2013 North American storm complex. I think that most weather articles failed WP:SUSTAINED because they often aren’t talked about unless they’re really bad and maybe more could be merged, but this one definitely I could not find a single thing on it. Vehicular accidents don’t guarantee notability even with over a dozen deaths.47.19.68.110 (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2023 (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.