Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Red Phoenix 2

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

Red Phoenix

Final (232/1/1) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 16:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC) (UTC)

Nomination

Red Phoenix (talk · contribs) – People have been waiting for another RfA for quite a few weeks now, and while there's a drive to get a bunch of new nominations in for September, when I saw Red Phoenix wanted to put himself forward for the mop and bucket, I thought we should really do it here and now. RP is one of those editors who really can do it all - he's got an amazing track record of featured articles including the very popular Sega and Sega Genesis (turning it, in his own words, "from the bottom of Wikipedia's worst to one of Wikipedia's best in just a few months"), contributing to articles for deletion debates with thoughtful opinions that regularly influence the overall consensus, reporting vandals at WP:AIV and generally being civil, polite and well-headed. Seriously, what's not to like?

The main reason Red Phoenix hasn't wanted to run sooner is because he had an unsuccessful RfA early in his wiki-career, and he's wanted to make absolutely sure he's ready before running again. I think he more than meets the qualities we want in an administrator, and I'm delighted to be able to put him forward for adminship. I hope you agree. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for your kind words, Ritchie333. I accept the nomination. I have never edited for pay, and never will. I have also never edited under another account, though I originally registered under the name "Redphoenix526" and usurped this name in 2008. Red Phoenix ^talk 20:52, 22 July 2020 (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. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I want to help out in the maintenance areas I work in when I’m not creating content: AIV, UAA, and CSD (specifically, G11 and G3 are my most experienced areas). Usually when I am not working on articles, I’m addressing vandalism or the use of Wikipedia for advertising or promotion. I want to be able to help reduce the never-ending queues for these when I am online. I would also be willing to pitch in at AFD, where I regularly participate in debates. I’ve done some non-admin closes at AFD already, but there’s usually more !voting than closing that non-administrators should focus on than trying to beat someone to a non-admin close to rack up a stat.

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

A: Absolutely it’s my content creation, particularly in the field of video games but I’ve strayed outside the lines to write quality articles in other subjects before, too. I have 7 FAs, 30 GAs, and two featured topics to which I am the primary contributor. The absolute best of the best are Sega and Sega Genesis, both of which see over 500k views per year, but I have a lot of unique contributions as well: Sega v. Accolade is a law article, and Sonic X-treme was AFD’d before I took it to FA status. I also have 11 article creations to my name, and though in 2008 I was given some bad advice to create about six of those, I went back and cleaned all of them up this year, because I don’t want any messes left behind that I caused. The absolute coolest thing, though, was I found out last year that an editor has been translating my work for the Chinese Wikipedia. It’s neat to know what you do inspires others to improve their projects as well.

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: Any good editor will eventually come into conflicts over editing, and I’m certainly no different. If I’m to lay all my cards on the table, the absolute worst was a GA nomination for Sega Saturn; I came into conflict with the reviewer and a fellow editor who was able to do more to improve it than I was, and I’d felt the article was “taken over” in a sense. Since then, though, I’ve made up with both individuals and came to realize that I don’t own my contributions, and I should be proud that what I did do brought others into the fold to keep pushing higher - that article is an FA now that I don’t count as one of mine, credit to TheTimesAreAChanging for pushing it that far. The reviewer, Indrian, and I have continued to work together since. On a broader scale, I’ve also taken part in the Sega Genesis / Mega Drive naming debates, listed at WP:LAME for how much ridiculousness it has gone through. I had a bit of a tiff with Smuckola over not using a sandbox to redraft Periscope (arcade game) first before working on it, but eventually when he’d seen what I did in a couple hours’ time, he sent me a barnstar and helped me to polish it into shape for a GA nomination.

The key I’ve learned in my time here is to be helpful and to remember that we all have the same goal, whether we’re on our first day here or a 12-year veteran. We all want to build the encyclopedia. To that end, I always try to conduct myself in a professional and friendly manner whether or not the situation stresses me out, think out my responses, and be firm but not rude only when it is needed. Indrian and a newer collaborator I work with, Namcokid47, heavily criticised my work during the FA review for Sega this year, but I chose to take a breath, address their points with a well thought out response, and not to think any differently of either of them for not fully giving their support. They, like me, were just doing what they felt best in terms of improving the encyclopedia. We will still be able to collaborate anytime, and I can only hope that we will again soon.

---

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.

Additional question from OcarinaOfTime

4. What would be your approach (and I'm particularly interested here in at what point would you consider imposing a block, if at all) if you saw the same editor repeatedly reporting incorrectly (but in good faith) to AIV?

A: We should always start with assuming good faith, and because of that, the approach starts with reaching out to the user to discuss their actions and explain when is the proper time to report to AIV and when is not, addressing the specifics of the behavior that are problematic. If the editor responds but continues to have issues, I would explain again the issue and offer to teach them how to report correctly to AIV. In the case that the editor does not respond but continues the incorrect reporting, I would give them the benefit of the doubt that they did not see the first message and reach out to them at least twice more, as we often give even minor vandals that much rope with warnings. Beyond that point, if the user still doesn't respond, I would have to consider a block on the grounds that competence is required. A block should only ever be a last resort — that's the kind of action that would drive what could be a good user away (and we as a project really can't afford that), but a user who refuses to communicate after every attempt has been made may need a block to stop disruption to the encyclopedia. Communication is a key of competence in a collaborative project such as Wikipedia.

Additional question from Muboshgu

5. Hi Red Phoenix. The first thing I noticed here was the "2" on the RfA, and Ritchie333 mentioned the failed RfA from 12 years ago. It was a long time ago (especially in Internet time) and I'm curious to get your take on what happened, as best as you can remember, and what has changed since then.

A: Sure, I'd be glad to explain. Basically in 2008, I was in my first year of college, to give you some perspective of my age at the time. I had written two GAs and an FL and had 3100 edits at the time of my nomination - noting that at the time, 2000 edits was the community de facto standard minimum for an RfA. An editor by the name of JeanLatore had seen comments I made at WP:VPP, saw a user box on my user page at the time that I wanted to be an admin someday, and asked if he could nominate me. I did do a quick look at his user page (1100 edits so he wasn't totally new, some other minor stuff), and thought that would be okay - I did want to be an admin anyway but didn't want to nominate myself, even when it was more common then. Well, JeanLatore hammed up the nomination - and I felt a little awkward taking it but didn't see an issue; he even asked a few decent questions at the RfA. It very quickly was pointed out to me just how bad the nomination was, and I started racking up opposes and recommendations to withdraw because my decision making was clearly bad for accepting such a nomination. Even though Giggy was willing to take over the nomination, I felt a lot like I took a hit to my reputation - I should have done much more due diligence but didn't know better at the time. And the evidence of that was right there for all to see. Though I had more supports than opposes at that point, I chose to withdraw, feeling that I clearly showed everyone that I really did not have the judgment skills necessary at the time. Subsequently, there was an ANI thread about JeanLatore, which he responded to but it had turned out he himself was a sockpuppet. From reading his SPI, it seems that after the RfA JeanLatore continued socking for some time. Failing an RfA is one thing, but I felt very embarrassed by this one because of why that happened and just how visible it was.

Since then, I've lived another 40% of my life and grown up. Judgment skills are now a crucial part of my career, let alone what I do on Wikipedia. I won't lie: when I came to Wikipedia at the tail end of 2007, I wasn't very mature, and that reflected in my editing. That I went inactive a few months later sure was an indicator of that - it wasn't just the RfA alone that did that, but a lot of on-Wikipedia changes plus off-Wikipedia stresses that I wasn't mature enough to handle caused it. The positive out of it is that when I came back in 2013, I came back a more mature contributor. I've had to continue to mature the more I've edited (see Q3 for an example of such), but the experiences I've edited through have developed my editing techniques and collaboration skills today. Was it a bad, embarrassing experience? Yes. But did I learn my lessons from it? Absolutely.

Additional question from LindsayH

6. I note you have been largely inactive twice, noting on your userpage you are, or might be, a Wikiphoenix; i don't care about that, nor am i asking why you were inactive; rather, i'm interested in whether you see yourself becoming inactive again, and if that will affect your ability to use the mop. (I've moved Muboshgu's question into position; hope that's OK!)

A: The answer to your question is no, I don't see myself going inactive again. As such, it will not impact my ability to use the mop or keep it safe from people trying to hack my account. Since my return at the end of 2017, I've contributed more than I ever did before, in large part thanks to my desire to help out with the areas I work in with anti-vandalism and AFD, plus some NPP, to a level I had never done when I was active before. This work does a great job filling in the gaps when I don't know what to do in content creation, so I'm not just "not editing" when I don't have something I want to work on in an article at the moment—which has happened quite a bit before 2018. In some ways, the maintenance-related tasks are actually helping to keep me here so that I can continue the content creation.

Additional question from Lightburst

7. In looking through contributions I see nothing you were involved with that was controversial. Likewise the few AfD closings, were all clear of controversy- (some could have been relisted after very low participation), but you never made a controversial close that I could find. You also seem to revert IPs quite a bit, But rarely confirmed editors. Most is clear cut vandalism (uncontroversial). Also your BLP edits are nearly all just reverts of IPs. I only found one time that you visited ANI to give an oppose and it was looking snowy. Can you point to any controversial decisions you were involved in during your time on Wikipepda and how it was resolved?

A: Per WP:BADNAC point 2, close calls or controversial closes are not supposed to be undertaken by non-administrators. That to me means I shouldn't have any controversial closes yet, and I have been careful to observe that. To me, a controversial close carries more weight when it is completed by an administrator, not that I'm any less capable without the tools, but other editors will observe and accept an administrator's controversial close more than a non-administrator's. I have been very cautious to observe the guideline specifically, but I don't have any qualms about undertaking a controversial close. On controversial decisions I've been involved in, the biggest by far was as part of the Sega Genesis naming war, listed at WP:LAME. Most specifically, I was quite involved in this 2013 RFC on the matter, which also later spilled over into Talk:Sega CD later on - I tried to help sort out the dispute even with my own opinion voiced, and I did not get what I thought should be the title, but I understood it and even made that article a good and later featured article down the road. I've had involvement in AFDs with some controversy and had more than just a !vote; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serious Truth comes to mind (and was more so before a lot of the keep !votes were stricken) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runeterra was a more recent example. Bear in mind with BLP policy as well that though I don't focus on living people specifically in my editing focus, that does not mean I don't have to have careful consideration of BLP. Articles about companies, such as Sega, Sega Technical Institute, and some of their projects such as Sonic X-treme have required me to be very cautious about BLP policy. Corporations can be very political (not actual politics, but as an internal environment), Sega was an extreme example in the mid to late 1990s, and it has led to care about handling the people involved.

Additional question from Lightburst

8. Thank you for the response. BADNAC is surely a concern for a non-admin - thank you for reminding me - I was also concerned that closing AfDs that only have one participant without any relist may be unwise - there were several like that. My overriding concern was that administrators often have to settle harsh content disputes and quickly protect articles. I noticed that you edit in areas where I am not as active. BLPs are a growing concern on the project. I sincerely thank you for the examples which show your involvement in discussions. I realize the tone of my question was not as measured as it should have been. Since in the game areas you may be considered WP:INVOLVEDwill you be closing unrelated controversial AfDs and RFCs in areas, like BLPs?

A: Eventually, yes; I don't want to simply sit on a fence with administrator tools. That being said, the first few times I want to close something controversial I will reach out to an experienced administrator to consult first, stay out of doing so in INVOLVED areas, and probably do so more with AfD to start than RfC only because that is where I have more experience. In AfD I have !voted on BLPs as well, and I will use the same level of caution while also ensuring to consider WP:BLP in any decision. While I don't have much AN and ANI participation, I read both regularly, and I know that controversial closes need to have a strong rationale and be well rooted with policy or it is likely to be challenged - MastCell's close of the AN thread that community banned SashiRolls recently comes to mind, as it was well rationed and still had controversy behind it that led to whole other discussions on the close and reopening the CBAN discussion.

Really quickly too on the relist comment: As the years have changed, so too has my understanding of AFD closes - most specifically, in 2013-2014 when I did more of them, I actually was not aware of WP:NOQUORUM, which I learned about in 2018. That may seem like a small blind spot, but I'm certainly more educated about NOQUORUM (and the opposite, relist bias), now than I was then.

Additional question from Ghinga7

9. Thanks for running! I was looking at your afd stats, and noticed your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/69,105. Would you still vote to delete that redirect, given the final outcome?

A: Honestly, I probably still would. I don't actually object to the mention of the in-joke in the encyclopedia, but to me it's a very unusual redirect for a number, even as a five-digit number. I think it meets WP:R#DELETE #8 as very obscure, a bit like how The one with the whales redirects to Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (and I do know that one has also had discussions about it that has led to it being kept). I'm all for alternatives to deletion as someone would hopefully see in my AfD history, and I like preserving page histories if they could be useful, but this redirect seems implausible for a worldwide audience of non-technical people or non-fans of Infocom. That being said, the decision is made and I don't see a reason to challenge it. That a merge was conducted and done the way I imagined it should, just a single line brought over to Infocom, would have been my second choice anyway, and was so only because of the implausible redirect.

Additional question from Hobit

10. One of the things admins do on a regular basis is close discussions. I think a lot of folks walk into the job not having done that much. I know you've done non-admin closes of AfDs. This is a "pick one of these to answer" question. What I'm looking to learn is how you handle closing things, either by seeing a close or by having you discussion your thoughts on closing things.

1. Is there any discussion (AfD or otherwise) where you wrote a fairly detailed explanation? If so, could you point us to it and describe your thought process?
2. If not, would you consider trying to grab something that needs a close and doesn't have 100% obvious outcome and closing it?
3. Could you describe how you'd approach closing a discussion? What steps do you take when preparing to close a discussion? What do you do if you feel policy heavily favors one side of the discussion but the !vote goes the other way?

A: Let's go with option 3, namely because with option 1 I don't have one as most non-controversial closes don't need a lot of detail and BADNAC says non-administrators should not close controversial discussions (see Q7 above), and with option 2 I'm not sure if you're asking me to pick one and do it now, or just answer if I would consider it - in which case, the answer is yes, I would, but that doesn't tell you a lot about me as a candidate.

Approaching a close takes a thorough evaluation of consensus, and while counting !votes is a big part of that, Wikipedia is not a democracy. The next step is evaluating the arguments - what's based in policy and past consensus, and what isn't? Policy-based arguments and those based on guidelines are usually steeped in a longtime community consensus that goes beyond just that discussion (WP:CONLEVEL) - a prime example I recall reading is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiyo Miyako, where 15 keeps to 6 deletes was carefully considered by the admin and the closer saw that the keep !votes generally were not strong enough to override community consensus supported by the deletes (I would have closed it as no consensus, personally, but the deletion review did that, and it was redirected later). In further considering the close, ensuring any sockpuppet !votes are stricken is important to avoid WP:BADSOCKs from impacting the discussion - WP:SPAs also have to be considered if they are coming with an agenda (I got a hard lesson on this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astropy), and ensure there was not canvassing to the conversation. By then giving the appropriate weight to each !vote, is the decision clear? If it is, then I'd put together a well thought out explanation of how I reached that decision and why, and close the discussion - noting that my close cannot be a WP:SUPERVOTE. If it's truly no consensus, then it needs to be closed that way, and an explanation given for why a conclusion of no consensus was reached. In the rare circumstance I feel it's between no consensus and another direction, and I'm really not sure, I'll reach out to an experienced admin for a second opinion first. There is no reason to fear doing a controversial close, but when doing one, it's important to ensure the decision is the best one that can be made and the rationale is well reasoned - the community appreciates not having to revisit a questionable close.

Additional question from Hog Farm

11. If you pass this RFA, would you be open to recall by the community, if such a situation arises?

A: Yes, I would be open to recall. It takes the faith of the community to become an administrator through this RfA process we're doing now. Much of Wikipedia is about the community, and community consensus. If I've lost the faith of that community, I probably should not be an admin any longer. I don't have a specific process in mind for it at this time (knowing we don't have a de-adminship process on the English Wikipedia except for Arbcom), but I would come up with one, as I have seen other administrators do. I do somewhat like the German Wikipedia model for demotion, although we don't do temporary demotions here.

Additional question from NYC Guru

12. You said you were willing to work with the AIV backlog. That being said would you be willing make sure the user listed is properly warned before issuing a block?

A: Absolutely - IPs are human too, and deserve the same levels of AGF we'd give anyone else; and for registered users, test edits happen. In fact, I had to be advised by Drmies once that I was warning too much and not reporting quickly enough. Naturally, that led to some adjustment in my reporting technique, not to stop giving warnings but to be willing to escalate them quicker if it's clear someone is intent on vandalizing.

Additional question from NYC Guru

13. If wikipedia ever shut down, how would you feel?

A: Probably not happy. Wikipedia is an ambitious project, one that couldn't be replicated at least with any sense of speed. It's not just about the content that's already built and preserved - that could all be copied elsewhere - but also the community behind it that works to build that content. That's the part that can't be replicated.

Additional question from Andrew D.

14. On your user page, you describe yourself as "One who contributes, dies (goes inactive), then is reborn to continue to contribute". Did you choose your Red Phoenix account name with this cyclical pattern of activity in mind or is there another reason for it?

A: I'd love to meet the person who plans a "cyclical pattern of activity" when they pick out their username. In any regard, I picked out my account name at a younger age because it sounded cool and I was playing an online game with my best friend at the time who went by the name "lord dragon". He died in 2015 very unexpectedly, so as I've grown up I've kept the same username in honor of my friend.

Additional question from SoWhy

15. Can you please explain this A7 for the article Sunshine Mall?

A: Sure - it's been a sore spot on my CSD log for some time and I've read the Deletion review on the matter. I tagged it for A7 on the grounds that I felt it made all the criteria. I drew parallels between this and Gold Triangle (store), which I tagged for A7 and was deleted some time before Sunshine Mall came up - here is how it looked at the time. Below, I'll approach this by giving you my perspective of how it met the criteria, and then the community's refutation of that point from the deletion review:

• From WP:CSD#A7: about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event. To me, a shopping mall is a commercial organization as a business, not a piece of architecture. That part was debated at the deletion review. Members of the community disagreed at the deletion review that WP:NBUILD applies as opposed to WP:ORG. I personally still don't agree with that, but that is the community consensus and I will observe that.
• does not indicate why its subject is important or significant: The version of the article I linked above appears strongly to be filled with very WP:ROUTINE coverage from only local sources and one user-contributed source. Gold Triangle (store) was the same way. To me, that meant it neither met WP:CCOS 1. a statement in the article that attributes noteworthiness because there was none, and 2. information you learn while looking at any references provided in the article as it was all local and routine coverage, and read like local and routine coverage. I wouldn't have an article on a strip mall somewhere that just said "this store went in, this store is closing, etc." from local sources. (Worthy of note is that I don't have a subscription to check the sources used, but evaluating the refs and the headlines used suggested strongly the coverage was all routine; I still can't speak to it but I'll take TenPoundHammer's word for it that there's more there). A7 doesn't mean that having something listed in the ref column means something has a credible claim of significance, but it also doesn't specify "if it has x amount of refs, assume a credible claim of significance". I think that would be a fallacy, but the community has demonstrated it would prefer those articles be discussed first.

To me, that meant that Sunshine Mall had no credible claim of significance, even through a quick review of the sources. And although the community respectfully disagreed, I clearly wasn't alone in that assessment: Bbb23 conducted the deletion, and TonyBallioni said he would have deleted it too because it had A7 "written all over it".

That being said, I wouldn't A7 this again knowing what I know now; I would have sent it to AFD. It's pretty clear now that the community would rather such coverage be evaluated at AFD first and that shopping malls are considered by many as architecture - and I saw both points pretty explicitly made, despite some minor disagreement in the deletion review. Clearly, A7 did not meet with the community's expectations in this case, and I'll carry that understanding of the threshold in the future. Plus, now there is a credible claim of significance in the article about it being climate controlled. Because the community has made the spirit of this application clear, I took quite a few takeaways from that - I haven't used A7 since, not because I wouldn't use A7, but because I have set my threshold higher and tighter and haven't happened upon another one that would meet the criteria since. I've had other accepted, unquestioned A7s, so I take it as lesson learned, and it won't be an issue in the future.

Additional question from Kakima minimoto

16. you looks nice to me, but before voting it for support, I am requesting your reply on my question, how will you tackle the sectarian biased and tensions on Wikipedia (talking about Buddhism and other religions) if you become an admin –Kakima minimoto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 🐔 Chicdat ^ChickenDatabase 10:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

A:

Additional question from Celestina007

17. A blank article is created, three hours pass & it is still left blank, an editor places an A7 on the article. Now as an admin what do you do? Decline or Delete?

A: A7 is the wrong tag for this particular article, but A3 certainly applies if it has been up for three hours with no content at all and none in its history. Unless it's a plausible redirect somewhere else and one could be created, then I would delete the article, but not for A7. Instead, for A3, and I'd drop a little note to the tagger that they mistakenly used the wrong tag.

Additional question from Dolotta

18. What nontechnical area of the English Wikipedia are you the weakest?

A: There's a couple that come to mind. Though I have so many quality contributions, I only ever nominated one WP:DYK. When I joined Wikipedia, DYK was only for articles expanded fivefold or new; none of the other possibilities such as for a recently promoted GA were there, and I didn't really dabble in article creation except for acting on some bad advice to create nine stub articles. So I never really got into DYK. I've never done any work at WP:CCI, either. Those two I'd call my weakest areas. When I have to figure out how to use a new aspect of Wikipedia, I usually spend quite a bit of time reading the instructions and looking at samples of completed actions, to make sure I have a good understanding of how it works before taking action.

Additional question from Puzzledvegetable

19. What is the biggest issue facing Wikipedia right now, and how do you intend to address it as an administrator?

A: I think the biggest issue we have is editor retention. From 2008 when I first joined to now, as the quality standards have improved and the number of articles continues to grow, we're starting to see activity levels drop and good editors depart the project. Some of that makes sense as part of just the way we've grown and the encyclopedia has fleshed out, that the low-hanging fruit is all off the tree. But we still need editors, probably now more than ever. As an administrator, I would help to address editor retention in the way I conduct myself: issues such as disruption, edit warring, vandalism, and neutral point of view need to be addressed, but I plan to use my collaborative spirit and cordial conduct to keep editors from wanting not to return to the encyclopedia over something they're involved in being addressed.

Additional questions from Naypta

20. What is the most important policy on Wikipedia, to your mind?

A: I feel it has to be WP:NPOV, for a few reasons. The core of WP:5P2, NPOV ensures we tell a worldwide perspective, exclude bias, give proper weight in coverage, indicate what actually is a fact and what is an opinion, and create the most accurate articles from reliable sources. It also allows us an academic handling to pseudoscience, fringe theories, religious beliefs, and other controversial and sometimes disputed subjects. While OR, V, and IAR are all important policies as well, I feel NPOV is the important backbone upon which all of those have to be constructed - we cannot edit on a bias or perpetuate a bias, if it can at all possibly be avoided. No OR, all verifiable is almost useless as a worldwide article if it perpetuates a bias.

21. A long-term editor breaks 3RR reverting a vandal. You see it; the long-term editor acknowledges that they broke 3RR, but doesn't apologise, saying that they believe it was justified by WP:IAR. What do you do?

A: First things first: check the edits. If it was actually reverting a vandal and the other edits were clear vandalism, then that's not even an IAR issue - it's covered by WP:NOT3RR, and the long-term editor is not in the wrong. However, I would advise them to be cautious if, say, two of those edits were part of a content dispute or for another reason, that those count against 3RR. If it was not actually vandalism and was a content dispute (or otherwise was not covered by NOT3RR), presuming it was a subject area I am not INVOLVED in, I would advise them that they need to reverse their edit and take it to the talk page to discuss, reminding them of WP:BRD. This is part of assuming good faith - IAR is often misapplied as a Get Out of Jail Free card (WP:NOTIAR), but a simple discussion to talk out the issue can iron out the situation. A failure to reverse and communicate may warrant a short block; continuing to revert will warrant a short block to prevent further disruption. Given that these tools are recent, I would also consider a partial block to encourage the user to take the discussion to the talk page.

Additional questions from Robert McClenon

22. What experience have you had in resolving or trying to resolve disputes between editors, either article content disputes or conduct disputes?

A: While I haven't done a ton in this field, I've certainly tried to work out disputes between other editors before. If you refer to Q7, I was a part of a 2013 RFC which got quite ugly, but one thing I did was to try and create an approach to balance the points other editors were making so that "calls for proof" and the general ugliness of the discussion could have a constructive basis to continue forward. Another more recent incident, although it didn't need much discussion before it stopped, was here where I called together two fellow editors who were having a minor edit war and squared away a dispute that was getting back and forth reversions for a bit. As mentioned in Q3, I feel strongly that understanding we're all here to build the encyclopedia is key. Barring finding out in the process that someone is not trying to do that, resolving disputes is about getting everyone to figure that out too, that that means casting aspersions is not necessary, and then focusing on how to improve the encyclopedia best with a collaborative spirit.

Additional question from Terasaface

23. Hello and thank you for all your hard work improving Wikipedia! The Gender bias on Wikipedia is very personal to me; I am wondering how you would handle an issue of harassment or vandalism based on gender, race, or sexual orientation? Thanks!

A: I take this kind of vandalism very seriously - I very firmly believe that any editing that promotes one group of people based on one of these statuses as above or below another is against the very fabric of what Wikipedia is and should be as a worldwide encyclopedia for all. WP:NONAZIS is one of my favorite essays on the matter, though it only focuses on race.

As an active vandal fighter, I already consider this heavily. Such vandalism and harassment is very clearly not in good faith. Normally I do give some slack to the minor everyday vandal and a few warnings, but I began giving any editor who conducted any such hateful vandalism an instant "Only warning", and then went straight to AIV for any additional violation, and requested revision deletion if it was warranted. As an administrator, I plan to address any kind of clear-cut harassment or vandalism based on gender, race, sexual orientation, and disability with blocks - there is no place for hate on Wikipedia, and every editor who is here to build the encyclopedia should feel welcome to be here, and no subject of an article should be the public subject of someone's personal hatred, even if it's a joke. I will also make appropriate use of revision deletion for grossly degrading vandalism and comments. I want to thank you as well for linking the Gender bias on Wikipedia article - I have been aware of the WP:GGTF for a while but never seen that article; I found it a very interesting and informative read.

Additional question from Smartyllama

24. Are there any Wikipedia policies or guidelines which you disagree with? If so, why?

A: All right, I'll bite. I have a witty response to the discussion about this question further down the page: "Next move? Spring the trap." I wouldn't call it "disagreement", per se, but I do sometimes find WP:SNG guidelines conflict with my editing philosophy in a few areas. Some of the sports guidelines, for instance, suggest you can have an article on someone if they've played in one professional game, because you can then presume the subject is notable, even when in AFD discussions we sometimes find a lack of coverage that makes us question if the subject even meets GNG. I disagree that we necessarily need an article on someone who only has a sentence or two of coverage because, as my editing history would suggest, I have a high standard for quality and I feel that we as editors should focus on article quality. That being said, I accept that these SNGs are set by community consensus, and I have to abide by that. When I'm new page reviewing, I keep in mind that an SNG gives us an idea of what the community has said is presumed notable. At AFD, I do consider SNGs when making points, but occasionally I will argue against them if I think GNG is not met. As an administrator, when considering a close of a discussion, arguments based on a community-decided SNG I will give valid weight to, without considering my personal editing philosophy in the matter.

Additional question from Sir Joseph

25.Would you ever block an admin, when necessary, and would your process for doing so be the same process as blocking a non-admin? If not, what would you do differently?

A: Ah, you're referencing the Super Mario effect — a concept not lost on me as an editor in the video games field. Fellow administrators are not exempt from the same policies as editors without permissions. In fact, we should be held to higher standards of conduct because we are in a position of community trust. I would be willing to make that block, although in my first couple of months if I felt it wasn't a clear-cut case I'd ask an experienced admin I could get right away for a second opinion, just as I would in the case of a controversial close, only until I have a good feel for the gray areas such as incivility blocks. But, I would probably do the same for a non-admin "gray area" block just for the first little while.

There is one difference between handling admin and non-admin blocks that I would have to handle. As I just mentioned, administrators have the bit because they are trusted. One would imagine, then, that if an admin needed a block, that's a sign something is very wrong. Because of that, I would add as an extra step looking for evidence that the admin account may have been hacked or there has been an abnormal change in the admin's behavior. If there is evidence, reporting for WP:LEVEL1 or WP:LEVEL2 may be necessary.

Additional question from Steel1943

26. Let's say an non-admin editor (with basically all user rights a non-admin can have) sends you a message, whether it be via talk page, email, etc. and they ask you "What can I do to improve and/or work on Wikipedia at this time?" What would your answer be?

A. My answer would be to find something you love and build an article! Whether it's a brand new article, a stub, an FA that could use a little more polish, or anything in the middle. Edit what you love to read about - I have a degree in biology, for instance, but I edit articles on video games and video game companies because I enjoy the research and what I learn by doing it. If you get stuck between articles, do some maintenance and opinion work for a while (vandalism fighting, CCI, contributing your opinions at VP, pitch in opinions at XfD, etc.), then go back to article editing when you're bored of that. Switch it up so you don't get bored. Content creation is the core of what we do, and even if you have permissions and are striving for more, we're all editors here to build the encyclopedia first. There are still literally millions of articles that need improvement and many more notable subjects that haven't even been written about yet, so there is always plenty of opportunity to improve Wikipedia through creating content.

Discussion

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Red Phoenix
• Requests for adminship/Red Phoenix 2

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

---

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

Support

1. Support as nominator Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
2. Support All the best. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 16:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
3. Support I haven't interacted much with this user, so took a look over his contributions. His content work is in a subject area I'm unfamiliar with, but there's clearly a lot of it and it's high-quality stuff. He's been a bit on and off over the history of the account, but has been editing regularly since 2018 so no concerns about tenure. AfD record looks good - >95% match with consensus, and from some spot checking his comments are grounded in policy, detailed (not just delete per nom), and crucially, they are polite and collegiate. Seems like a great all-rounder - happy to support. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
4. Support I originally discouraged Red Phoenix from immediately running at his first ORCP request a few months back since I felt he was a bit weak in his primary proposed admin areas, and in the last year questions have often focused on that (a significant positive in my view). His most recent ORCP came back with everything on the list eminently resolved and so I am ecstatic to see RP running - both because their experience aspects are resolved but also because candidates who adapt to feedback so quickly are a bonus. While I personally prefer candidates likely to be active in AfD to have NAC experience, the general community has become more reticent and even hostile towards them in the last 18 months. As such, I don't consider it unreasonable for a candidate with strong participation to not have NAC experience. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
5. Support - has incredible content creation (may ask for some tips...), experienced and no red flags - seems like a no-brainer. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
6. Support Got a very strong grasp on CSD, which for me is a plus. Not much in the way on content creation, some article have been created, so understands the need of content creators. Also seems to an excellent anti-vandal which is another plus. A decent candidate. scope_creep^Talk 16:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
7. Support – I'm pleased to support this candidate: his content work is stronger than average, a review of his user talk page shows that he is a good communicator, I've had only positive personal interactions with him, and he is both active and proficient in multiple areas where administrative work would be helpful. This is clearly a qualified candidate who will be a net positive to the project with the extra buttons in his toolset. Mz7 (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
8. Support Their content creation work is high quality, they have a good amount of experience with counter-vandalism work, and there are no red flags that I can see. Seems like they would be a net positive as an administrator. --Ahecht (TALK
   PAGE) 17:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
9. Support Strong content work, and level headed. Feel like they will be a net positive to the project, and comfortable giving them the tools. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
10. Support. I am convinced that the candidate will be a net positive to the admin corps. Their content contributions are impressive, and they present a substantive justification for the tools. Their talk page history demonstrates a history of collegiality in interacting and collaborating with others. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
11. Support Old RfA failed for reasons that do not apply here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
12. Support - Looks okay to me. Deb (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
13. Support their overall experience is satisfactory. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
14. Support Great all around, AIV, featured articles, AfD. Obvious to me! Leijurv (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
15. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
16. Support. He has a need for the tools, good content creation, good AIV stats. I don't think article creation is important as long as he has content creation, which is demonstrated pretty well here with multiple featured and good articles. epicgenius (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
17. Support, enthusiastically. Excellent history of content creation, knows his way around the project, and is able and willing to help others. – bradv🍁 18:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
18. Support - great counter-vandalism work and content creation work. Happy to support. -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
19. Support. Brilliant editor. JOEBRO64 19:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
20. Support - no concerns, sufficient content and non-content experience. After reviewing some of their AFD !votes, I'm particularly impressed with how often they were the first !voter, !voted for an alternative to deletion (merge or redirect), and matched consensus. Based on a IMO relatively-short CSD log, I would like to see a slow start on CSDs and building up more experience there, but I think they'll use the tools responsibly and use them well, and we'll all benefit from it. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
21. Support - a brilliant all round editor with plenty of experience and expertise in many areas. Would be a valuable addition to the sysop team :) Ed6767 talk! 19:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
22. Has a clue, not a jerk. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
23. Support - No concerns and very thoughtful. --Enos733 (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
24. Support precious Sega saga --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
25. Support - I think he'll do great in anti-vandalism. I support! ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 20:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC
26. Support Great candidate. 👍 AIV needs more eyes. --Pudeo (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
27. Support - Absolutely spiffing, terrific editor that has done much of the work that keeps this encyclopedia great! Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 21:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
28. Support I feel that Red Phoenix will make a great admin! GrammarDamner how are things? 21:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
29. Support I went through the last month or so of their contribs, finding mostly vandalism reverts, templated messages and the occasional AfD !votes. There is not a lot of direct interaction with other users (i.e. back and forth talk page discussions) in that month, aside from the above and this AfD, but I imagine there will be a lot of direct interaction with all kinds of users when they get the admin bit. The user seems to be cordial without fail. A definite positive.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
30. Support Per Gerda at User talk:Red Phoenix/Archive 2#Precious. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 22:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
31. Support - Sometimes people have their particular areas, have no interest in moving out of those particular areas, and could do more in those particular areas if they had admin tools. That's fine with me. If Red Phoenix is playing the very long game to remain completely uncontroversial for more than a decade in order to get the tools and wreak havoc with them, well, consider me tricked. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
32. Net positive — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
33. Support - Seems to have a a great temperment. Plus I salute anyone willing to endure a week of hazing.Seven Pandas (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
34. Support per Kevin. Temperamentally suited for adminship, and the first RfA is ancient history. Miniapolis 23:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
35. Support do you like nowikis...? -Killarnee (C•T•U) 23:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

    Killarnee, looks like they like the visual editor which sometimes inserts nowikis. --Trialpears (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

36. Support - especially the maturity shown in the answer to Q5. Deryck C. 23:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
37. Welcome aboard. El_C 23:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
38. Support - If he is willing to take up the mop, I can trust him. GamerPro64 23:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
39. Support No concerns, netpos, get mopping. -- ferret (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
40. Support I trust Ritchie333 and consequently I will trust this candidate and I thank them for the answers to my questions. The project can use more pleasant and measured administrators. I look forward to the candidate using the tools to protect content and content creators. Lightburst (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
41. Support Good luck! JPG-GR (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
42. Support Admins should be content creators, and RP shows they are excellent at it. They also have enough backend experience for my tastes, and have been around a long time. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
43. Support I don't see any red flags. The single oppose thus far is very unconvincing. P-K3 (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
44. Support When this candidate appeared at ORCP I conducted a thorough review and came to the conclusion that I would be willing to nominate them Red Phoenix for RfA. I am glad that 8 hours in the biggest concern is that someone with 10 pieces of featured content is not enough of a content creator. Red Phoenix is highly accomplished in all the areas he's chosen to be a part of. I'm a little disappointed in Ritchie333 because he didn't say something in his nomination that he'd said previously about Red Phoenix I found to be very true in my deep examination of his editing record is that not only does RP write terrific content he does it in video games which means he is writing featured content while working with other editors. That that take tact, diplomacy, and a rock solid understanding of our policies and guidelines. Red Phoenix has been an asset to our encyclopedia for years and to whatever extent he chooses to use the administrative toolkit I am confident that he'll remain an asset for years to come. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
45. Support Excellent editor and contributor, no concerns. Happy to support. CThomas³ (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
46. Support, They are an excellent content creator, and they have an excellent record at AfD. They would clearly make a good admin. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
47. Support - I’ve worked with off and on over the years, and I have full faith in them. Sergecross73 msg me 01:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
48. Strong Support - Absolutely no concern over activity level. Some people have life happen and I can very much relate to that as I myself am just returning to regular editing after I got done with school. We should evaluate what the candidate does do and how well they've done it. Not at all concerned with AfD stats either. This would be a WP:NETPOSITIVE and this editor has shown commitment to improving. -- Dane ^talk 01:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
49. Support great content creation, has a clue at AfD, seems to have good temperament. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
50. Support I don't see why not. Banedon (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
51. Support Long-term respected user. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
52. Support likely net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
53. Support Fine editor, no concerns, confident they'll make a good admin. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
54. Support Has a clue, not a jerk, has demonstrated an ability to learn from mistakes. I also respect any potential admin who would be willing to go through a recall process if the community loses faith in them (which I can't see happening here). Hog Farm _Bacon 03:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
55. Support, seems well-qualified for the mop. BD2412 T 04:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
56. Support It has been a real pleasure today learning more about this editor and their contributions, and to read their well reasoned analyses going back quite a few years. This is clearly a person who is dedicated to this encyclopedia and is always willing to learn more and reconsider when new information is brought to a discussion. To state the obvious, this is a person who has matured well during their many years editing Wikipedia. I am confident that Red Phoenix will be a fine administrator. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
57. Support - Not come across this editor before as we cover vastly different topics. Answers to questions give no concern. A failed RFA 12 years ago is totally discountable. Been around more than long enough to have a clue. That the nominator is Ritchie333 also gives me confidence to support. Mjroots (talk) 05:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
58. Support - per TonyBallioni and my personal assessment.--NØ 05:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
59. Support Why not? -FASTILY 05:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
60. Support A quality editor who has been here for a long time, he knows the rules etc, and I wish you all the best in your future work, good luck. Mikola22 (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
61. Support — The temperament, excellent contributions, with a desire and experience dealing in admin-areas such as AIV/RPP. The perfect mix. @Red Phoenix: I wish you all the best, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
62. Support strong content contribution, understands process and policies, no red flags. --Find bruce (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
63. Support strong answers, good content creation. I see no problems. One thing, on my question, keep in mind that sometimes the right answer is to !vote rather than close. Hobit (talk) 06:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
64. Support has a clue, no issues I can see. – Majavah ^{talk · edits} 06:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
65. Support. Yes, a net positive. A little concerned about the on-again-off-again editing over the years; however, there are so many other good things about this mopper wannabee! Can't help but support. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 07:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
66. Support. Excellent content contributions and communication skills. — Newslinger talk 07:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
67. Support per an awful lot of clever folk above; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 07:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
68. Support per Lindsay. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
69. Support per vast consensus. SKay (talk) 08:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
70. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 08:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
71. Support - --- FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 08:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
72. Support: temperament is the trait I look for first and the fairly mild issues Red Phoenix has had are nothing to worry about, particularly given the great attitude towards the incidents they show in their answers to questions. Other than that I see outstanding content creations, a reason to use the tools and more than enough recent activity to have no concerns. — Bilorv (talk) 09:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
73. Support: Great record on content creation/addition, need for the tools, good answer to my question and others, fellow Sonic the Hedgehog fan... ticks all my boxes! OcarinaOfTime (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
74. Support Clear net positive and good candidate. 🐔 Chicdat ^ChickenDatabase 10:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
75. Support Longstanding editor with strong knowledge of policy. Glen 10:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
76. Support Gog the Mild (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
77. Support. No real concerns. Haukur (talk) 11:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
78. Support — I’d be disappointed if they didn’t give me the answer I’m expecting to hear but generally they are a net positive, have a clue & aren’t immature. That is sufficient for me. They have answered my question & it was just the answer I was looking to see. Celestina007 (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
79. Support - all the best. Tolly4bolly 12:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
80. Support - can be trusted with the tools. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
81. Support - No reason not to support, a skim of xtools didn't give me any reason not to support. The current oppose worries about time away from wikipedia is not a concern to me as people have RL. Good people are !voting support. Best wishes and hoping no skeleton emerges.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
82. Support — no concerns - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 13:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
83. Support clear net positive. Cheers! -- puddleglum^2.0 13:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
84. Support Trusted editor, no concerns from my side ~ Amkgp 💬 14:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
85. Support Long term user has been around since Aug 2007 clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
86. Support. The answer to my Q15 is well thought-out although I disagree with the base assumptions but the candidate has clearly took this to heart. On a side note, I think Gold Triangle (store) is a bad example because it, too, seems like a bad A7 tagging and deletion, the subject having been a chain of discount hard goods stores owned and operated by Federated Department Stores, the parent company of Burdines with some offline sources I'm pretty certain neither the candidate nor the deleting admin have been able to review. Plus, the notable parent company screams WP:ATD-M to me (under Macy's,_Inc.#Former which I have done now). However, the candidate's contributions are solid otherwise and I am reasonably convinced they will be more careful with A7 in the future. The (lone) oppose does not sway me, the candidate having sufficient tenure even if one only counts the time of activity after returning to editing (plus my edit count looks pretty similar). Regards SoWhy 14:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

    Fun fact: I restored Gold Triangle (store) in order to merge it and Ritchie333 declined the A7 the candidate had added before I had the chance to redirect the article. Regards SoWhy 18:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

87. Support Level-headedness and openness to hearing differing opinions is something that's in short supply in this day and age—and Wikipedia is no exception, with lots of headache over the community's apparent tolerance of inappropriate conduct. I'm impressed by the candidate's responses to Q3 and, with such a long tenure, feel confident that this candidate will not devolve into some of the more ridiculous situations that other editors—even other admins—have gotten themselves into. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 15:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
88. Support While I can't immediately recall seeing him around, so to speak, he has impressive contributions. Reasonable answers to the questions answered thus far. I say, "give him the mop!" = paul2520 💬 15:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
89. Seems like a competent person, and taking breaks from Wikipedia is a huge plus for me. Let's not require our admins to be addicted. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
90. Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
91. Support Good answers, decent contribution. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
92. Support No red or yellow flags. Plenty of clue and a constructive record. The sole oppose is unpersuasive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
93. I could find nothing of concern and plenty to like. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
94. Support Has clue, great content creation, no reason to oppose. CompassOwl (talk to me!) 18:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
95. Great work on past US road GAs. Not really convinced by the inactivity concerns. --Rschen7754 18:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
96. Support - Though I was a bit concerned regarding the large inactivity gaps, I'm going to trust you that it will not happen again. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
97. Support Good video games and US roads editor. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 19:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
98. Support Inactivity gaps are fairly prominent, but you seem to have made up for it with what you do on here when you're active. – DarkGlow (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
99. Support no issues Danski454 (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
100. Sure. — 🦊 20:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
101. Support per my RfA criteria —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
102. Support, looks good to me! Appreciate the thoughtful answers. I look forward to collaborating with you, Red Phoenix. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
103. Support per Levivich. May your adminship be fruitful! Jusdafax (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
104. Support per strong editing history, answers to my questions and passion for improving the Encyclopedia. NYC Guru (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
105. Support because I think the candidate would be a good administrator on the English Wikipedia. Good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 00:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
106. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Is 12 years between RfAs a record? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
107. Support I think they will make a great admin and contribute to Wikipedia. Thanks for contributing! !vote - Eric0892 01:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
108. Stephen 02:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
109. Support I know that this candidate is correct. Jingiby (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
110. Support - Beautiful answers to the questions. The lone oppose actually bolsters my support because it demonstrates a sufficient level of activity (I require 6 months of continuous activity, the candidate has been continuously active going back to 2017), and an overwhelmingly sufficient level of achievement, with a whopping dozen featured works and another 32 good articles to their name. It is absolutely comical to me that a user with 100k+ edits is implying that the user is inexperienced in the article content field because they have only created 13 articles (I was unanimously promoted with one), while blatantly ignoring this extremely high level of experience in the field of quality content development, and then says no matter how well they're refuted, they refuse to change their view. Yet another of the endless examples that show how out-of-touch with the community that some of these "power users" can be. Oh well. I hope this candidate will be a shoe-in, because they certainly deserve it. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
111. Support Clearly a net positive. Will help in active areas that need much oversight. Good answers. Positive interactions and temperament. Per Nosebagbear, Mz7, Barkeep49, Bilorv and Cullen³²⁸, in particular. Donner60 (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
112. Support, with surprise and enthusiasm. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
113. Support Seems like they would be a capable and competent admin.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
114. Support – Eminently qualified and trustworthy. Per Swarm, the sole oppose vote actually bolsters my confidence in this candidate. Thirteen new articles, a member of our community for well over a decade, and continuously active for three years. Those are reasons to support in my book. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
115. Support per TonyBallioni. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
116. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 08:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
117. support He as a majority support.He has proven he is up to it. Is contributions has done it. He deserves it. Go on buyo.tbiw ^(talk)
118. Support Experienced and levelheaded editor. Bingobro (Chat) 10:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
119. Support No issues. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
120. Support -- Appears to be well qualified for the position. -- Dolotta (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
121. Support - I see no red flags here, Sure the activity has been on the low side for over 10 years but as pointed out there could be many reasons for that, AFD etc all look fine, unconviced by the oppose comment tbh, Easy support. –Davey2010^Talk 13:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
122. Support - Great content creator, has the right temperament to be an admin. Would do good work in striving against vandalism, and would be level-headed at AfD. Netherzone (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
123. Support Sure, I'm perfectly happy to support. Quahog (talk • contribs) 13:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
124. Support - net positive, per TonyBallioni. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
125. Support: A strong net positive to the project that leaves me with no reason to oppose. All the best and stay safe! JavaHurricane 14:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
126. Support. From the answers to the questions I find Red Phoenix to be very open and honest. Has made significant contributions to the project and attitude is great. Definitely a net positive. All the best! --Alan Islas (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
127. Support while I've only seen Red Phoenix in terms of creating content, the responses above seem good to me, and a quick search brings up nothing of concern. Good contributor, nothing to suggest they won't be a good admin (and certainly enough to suggest they will be good, namely experience). Kingsif (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
128. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
129. Support Answers to questions are satisfactory, and in addition I agree with GirthSummit's reasoning. Airbornemihir (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
130. Support Well qualified. Dhpage (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
131. Strong Support Great content creator that is a net positive. Eternal Shadow Talk 20:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
132. Support - I don't see any issues with this one. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
133. Support Net positive, no concerns. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
134. Support I echo what Swarm and Mz7 have said above. Well qualified candidate with plenty of experience. My support is also bolstered by the oppose as I believe the oppose sets an unrealistic expectation of activity and further precipitates the lack of newer editors becoming admins. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
135. Support Above and Beyond is the phrase that comes to mind. — Ched (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
136. Support ~SS49~ {talk} 01:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
137. Support Good editor, knows policy. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 01:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
138. Support, will be an asset. Cavalryman (talk) 01:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC).
139. Support, I like his attitude on edit summaries and his "Due weight as a measure of appropriate coverage" essay. Good luck. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
140. Support, clearly a good candidate, who will help wikipedia to thrive. --Bduke (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
141. Support I have only the bare minimum wikipedia activity to vote on an RfA, but under this humble grasp of things around here, I believe the user has a sufficiently nice edit history, despite his period of long inactivity. 30 months of continuous activity seem sufficient. The candidate also displays nice behavior on the admin noticeboard. Their RfA in 2008 caught my attention, but I think that belongs to the past. Walwal20 (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
142. Support. I liked the answer to question #20. -- œ^™ 06:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
143. Support — overdue. Will be an excellent admin. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
144. Support - Seems good to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
145. Support - Great editor with long and productive history. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
146. Support Per all the reasons above, strong support. We need some RfAs moved through. Jasphetamine (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
147. Support - Per many of the above reasons. Seems to be a net positive. Best of luck! --Jack Frost (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
148. Support - Long term, positive contributor. Sensible answers to questions - I actually vaguely recall the car-crash first RfA discussed in Q5, and while I don't think it reflected all that badly on Red Phoenix even at the time, the thoughtful way he discusses it really does show a lot of good analysis. Apparently electing not to answer the transparently-pointed and entirely gratuitous Q16 also shows good judgement. I don't have any concerns regarding the gaps in contributions; with a project as long-running as this one, more and more of us are going to have periods where we just don't particularly feel like it, or have better things to do. Taking Red Phoenix's most recent few years of consistent editing is vastly more than adequate to reach a decent conclusion that he'd make a good admin. ~ mazca ^talk 11:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
149. Support per User:Swarm--!nnovativ (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
150. Support, no worries, as per Alan Islas. Rise like a red phoenix, dude. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
151. Support: A bit of concern regarding the inactivity gaps but the candidate is clearly qualified to be an admin. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
152. Support per all of the above. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
153. Support Satisfied with the answer to my question. The candidate appears to have plenty of experience, and I see nothing wrong with this nomination. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 15:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
154. Why not? --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 15:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
155. Support per everyone above: well-qualified, sufficient tenure, really well-thought-out answers, etc. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 16:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
156. Support, no reason not to support. – Frood (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
157. Support – Great content contributor. You don't have to be the first editor on an article to be a good contributor. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
158. Support for meeting my mins and the only opposition I see is mainly concerns over periods of inactivity years ago. Cheers. Ifnord (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
159. Support All the best. ThesenatorO5-2^{argue with me} 00:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
160. Support Per everyone else. Good luck! WDM10 (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
161. poking in from vacation to support per noms, answers to questions, and candidate's editing history. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
162. Support No concerns. Nihlus 04:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
163. Support No valid arguments against the candidate. Has great content addition, edit count, afd participation, long time wikipedian. Checks all criteria. - hako9 (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
164. Support - net positive, have seen good things.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
165. Support, user appears to have clue. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
166. If for no other reason than the candidate's remarkable patience with some pretty ridiculous questions and an absurd number of them. —valereee (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
167. Support Looks like a good candidate to me. De728631 (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
168. Support after review. No issues here. While I trust this user, if any mistakes are made I'm sure this user will Live and Learn from them. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

     @ZettaComposer: Red Phoenix's adminship seems to be hanging on the edge of tomorrow. Mz7 (talk) 02:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

169. Support Good job. RuiyuShen 14:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
170. Sorry I'm late. Best wishes!! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
171. Yes. It has taken us 12 years to right a wrong. What happened to Red Phoenix with their first RfA 12 years ago is disturbing (a false nomination by a sockpuppet of a banned troll), and no wonder they were unsure about applying again. Full credit to them for staying on this project and doing so much excellent work after that experience. SilkTork (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
172. Support Substantial work in content creation which, IMO, is an important requirement for becoming an administrator on an encyclopedia.--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
173. Support per my comment at ORCP. I'm afraid I also find the oppose unconvincing. I note that—per their user page —User:Maile66 is an admirer of things Texan. That may explain why they don't mind starring in a lone state  :) ——Serial 16:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
174. Support No real issues. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
175. S - has a clue - looks like this may surpass 200+ ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
176. Support I like what I've seen of the candidates work, and I like the answers to questions here. Good luck. Vexations (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
177. Support A great fit for the mop. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 18:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
178. Support No legitimate reason to deny this RfA. daylon124 (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
179. support For what it's worth, there are large gaps in my editing too. It's called having a life. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
180. Support My support - the 180th in an RfA with only one oppose - isn't needed. But I'm giving it anyways. We need more admins - there's always backlogs that can use 'em - and this candidate seems like they'd do a fine job. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
181. Support per last poster my vote is hardly needed but it is great to see another (hopefully) admin that wants to help out on AIV, CSD etc. where their attention is always needed. This candidate is ideal. JW 1961 Talk 20:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
182. Support. Umm ... just look at the somewhat long "Neutral" discussion below for the reason why. After 12 years since the last RFA ... that's freaking commendable. Props. Steel1943 (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

     Deep curtsey. —valereee (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

183. Support: I echo what The Squirrel Conspiracy says about the need to support, and, like them, I'm giving one anyways. The one oppose is not convincing me. This is the most qualified canidate I've seen in a long time. Everything is spectacular. Their response to my question combined with their remarkable voting stats shows me that this canidate knows policy well but at the same time will go against concensus if need be. They will be a great net positive to the encyclopedia. Ghinga7 (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
184. Support No problems that I can see. The candidate did a fine job giving detailed and well-thought-out responses to the many questions he received.YUEdits (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
185. Support Best of luck! – Muboshgu (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
186. Support I haven't encountered this user before but I'm comfortable supporting based on the nomination, answers to questions, and obviously the nearly unanimous support from others in the community. ~Awilley (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
187. Support Undoubtedly one of the best editors I've worked with. His writing, dedication, and professionalism are to be envied. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 22:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
188. Support I wasn't going to bother piling on, but after reading their answer to Q24 I felt I had to register my support. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
189. Support User has shown he will be capable of using the admin tools to improve Wikipedia, and that's basically what matters. Smartyllama (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
190. Support. No reason not to. /Julle (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
191. Some Wikipedians who did best means it should be a new administrator, Some Wikipedians have lots of works here, and Some Wikipedians are did right. I am gladly to support him, so i'm in favor of Support. /Rdp060707 (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
192. Support seems to be OK. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
193. Support - I looked at the Opposes, and didn't see any substantive reasons to oppose, and I do see reasons to support. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
194. Support I’ve absolutely no reason to oppose and always glad to see quality content creators with the mop. Grey Wanderer (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
195. Support - didn't spot any issues and overall seems like a solid editor.--Staberinde (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
196. Support -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
197. Support. I've never come across this editor before, but he has given great answers above, and is open to recall (Q11) so the risk is well worth taking. – Fayenatic London 10:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
198. GMG^talk 12:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
199. Support- No concerns here. Solid candidate IMO.   Aloha27  talk  14:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
200. Support The answers to the questions look good. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
201. Support. Great answers to the questions, great content contributor, great AfDing- in other words- has clue, not a jerk. The lone oppose sets an unreasonable activity expectation. My only complaint is that I wasn't support #200. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 15:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
202. Support per TonyBallioni - and if only to point out yet again what ridiculous nonsense so many questions are - espcially from those who ask questions just because they can and think it's cool to do so. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
203. Support, basically per everyone. —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
204. Support: Sure, why not? — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 17:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
205. Support - Easy support for me. Neovu79 (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
206. Support per nom. I've seen this candidate at AFD, I think they will make a good candidate. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
207. Support Will make a good admin. Ec13328 (talk 18:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
208. Support I appreciate the thorough answers to all the questions above! Terasaface (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
209. Support I am very happy to add myself to the long list of supporters. I am really confident that Red Phoenix will be a very good admin. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
210. Support. No concerns, can start right away... Loopy30 (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
211. Support. Looks like a fine candidate. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
212. Support Already an asset to the 'pedia this will grow with the addition of the mop and pail. MarnetteD|Talk 03:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
213. Support So far, so good. Jake The Great! | 📞 talk 03:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
214. SupportJuntungWu (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
215. Support No concerns, looks good to me. -- CptViraj (talk) 04:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
216. Support - Looking at the questions, I don't see any real issues for this article as I will be happy for him to have the mop. HawkAussie (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
217. Support - I don't think we have ever interacted but comparing this with the previous mop request I can see the user has gone a hell of a long way to get where they are now. Nightfury 07:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
218. Support - No reason why not. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
219. Support Why not? Multiple prolonged periods of inactivity is not much of an issue here. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
220. Support seems like a solid candidate. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
221. Support, no concerns. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
222. Pile-on support. Welcome to the admin team. Jonathunder (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
223. Support No major concerns and seems to be well-qualified. Herbfur (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
224. Support pile-on !vote - TNT ^💖 18:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
225. Support. Here to contribute and willing to look at self. Happy to pile on for such a good candidate. BusterD (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
226. Support. I've observed many instances of sound judgment over many years of editing in the same circles. Looking forward to what you'll bring to the project next! czar 04:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
227. Support because all the users I recognize and respect supported and Red Phoenix is a cool name. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 07:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
228. Support, piling on, no issues with giving them a mop. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
229. 12 years later than it should have happened. Obvious dedication to the project. Periods of inactivity do not necessarily signal an abandonment of the project, many dedicated users remain connected via watchlists, reading, contemplating, without necesarily editing all the time. –xeno^talk 12:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
230. Support Echoing everyone that came before me. Capt. Milokan (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
231. Support. Looks good. Good luck! Nsk92 (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
232. Support. Good focus on content creation. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Large gaps in participation on Wikipedia. The years 2009, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2016 and most of 2017, have had little-to-nothing in the way of editing. Doesn't matter why. Only 13 articles created, with 3 since deleted. I have concerns that the admin tools will have them making decisions over areas where they have little experience, and therefore, little instinct or first-hand knowledge. Sometimes, adminship plays out as arbitration between two opposing views. How does an admin decide in a situation that requires the knowledge from experience?
   This user does not seem to be offering any vital technical skills to the project, so we are talking here about AIV, CSD, AFD, RFPP, UAA, etc. Most concerning is their lack in AFD, where participants have very strong opinions - supplemented sometimes by invented or misunderstood rules. Participation builds instincts for the decision making. I've seen AFD nominations where the nominator has little, or no other experience but AFD. That doesn't rule out any nominator arguing their nomination as long as anyone ivotes "Keep". And some don't base their reasoning on any Wikipedia dictates, but argue their point in a way to make it sound like a Wikipedia rule you just haven't seen yet. We do sometimes have a herd instinct, in that regard. In a scenario where the participants mostly ivote to delete, because they ivoted like everyone who came before them - and they're wrong - how does the admin close it if they are not familiar with the Wikipedia dictates over that situation? How do you know either the nominator or ivoters didn't fabricate the guidelines they cite? — Maile (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

   People can have a life outside of Wikipedia. You don't know what their circumstances were in those times. They should be judged on what they did, not what they didn't do. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

   I am quite confused by the narrow focus on the raw number of articles created while completely disregarding all other quality content work this candidate has worked hard over the years to contribute. It is true that some RfA candidates lack experience in content creation, having focused only on the project's maintenance work, but it would grossly mischaracterize Red Phoenix to say that he is such a candidate. I also don't quite follow your point about AfD—this candidate has plenty of reasonable participation there. You claim to have seen that "some [AfD nominators] don't base their reasoning on any Wikipedia dictates", but I don't understand how that observation applies to the judgment of this candidate specifically, who has certainly never "fabricate[d] the guidelines they cite" in any of the cases I looked at. Mz7 (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

   Mz7 hello there, fellow admin. I didn't want to go on forever and forever. The number of articles is not important most of the time in these nominations. But we learn so many rules, guidelines, and numerous dictates as we go along creating articles. As for AFD, experience comes into play there. My knowledge that I apply at AFD gets better, the more years I participate in it. I think it would with anybody. Take it or leave it - but it's my personal experience that the job we do as admins can be directly affected by our related experience at article and content creation. I did not ... in any sense of the word ... mean to imply that this candidate "fabricate[d] the guidelines they cite" And I'm sorry you read it that way. What I meant, is that those who ivote are liable to toss up any reasoning, citing it as Wikipedia guidelines. And they are sometimes/often mistaken, or just saying what is convenient for the moment. So ... my point was meant to be, that if you don't have a lot of experience to have all those rules and regulations on instinct, how do you know if someone is just saying it's a Wikipedia policy? — Maile (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

   What does all this have to do with Red Phoenix? This should either be supported by evidence, or removed as off-topic. – bradv🍁 22:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

   The previous editor was asking for my explanation on my Oppose. I gave it to them. I have a right to ivote Oppose. I have a right to explain to someone asking follow-up questions. It's hardly off-topic since the RfA/RfB toolbox is provided on this page for us to see the nominee's history. The RfA/RfB toolbox is the evidence. — Maile (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

   I think I have a better understanding of your view—the thought is that because this candidate has not created a lot of articles in the sense that he was the first contributor, he doesn't have sufficient instincts or intuition on what kinds of articles are acceptable at AfD, so if he encounters an AfD whose majority opinion is counter to Wikipedia guidelines, he may not have the intuition to identify that situation. I respectfully disagree. I believe he does have this intuition, and it's clearly reflected in his AfD participation. I will also note that some of the articles he did create from scratch are not reflected in the "articles created" toolbox because they were redirects beforehand, e.g. Crush 40 [1]. Mz7 (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

   OK. I'm not changing my position, but I respect the points you make here. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

   Probably a little offtopic and certaintly not trying to jump on the oppose, but just on the activity point raised here. In terms of actively making edits (being "active") by month, the nominee actually has been active since October 2017, which is the same as the lifespan of my account. Considering I passed an RfA earlier this year, does 30 months not seem like a long enough period for activity not to be an issue? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

   I tend to agree. The nominee has been active since 2017; enough time to make a reasonable evaluation. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

   ...Are you ever going to vote in one of these things? Steel1943 (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

   Always, but only after careful reflection. We must take care in selecting our administrators. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Neutral

Support — Crossed Neutral Few articles created, and very minimal AfD closing experience. High delete !vote low keep !vote record. 47% main space participation is decent. Not opposing for now because of the main space participation and because of the respect for the nominating admin's opinion. Will also wait to see if anyone else shakes the tree and something falls out. Lightburst (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Since I'm here - I'll note that I had zero AfD closing experience when I ran for RfA. I was concerned that I would be susceptible to relist bias, and decided that it would be better for me to wait until I had the technical ability to implement whatever judgement I came to - if Red Phoenix has done the same, I respect that. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Girth you matched other criteria that I look for when I !voted for you. At the time you had 40 articles started, and close to 50% main space participation. And AfD !votes at the time you had a slightly higher keep record at AfD. I also agreed with most of your answers to the questions. Also my interactions with you have always been pleasant. I am unfamiliar with this editor so I will sit here a spell and think on it. Lightburst (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't confuse article creation with content creation -- there's nothing magical about clicking the "create" button, and just because an IP created a redirect or stub on an article that you later expanded doesn't mean that your work should be any less valued. If you go beyond clicking on the "RfA/RfB toolbox" link "articles created" link, you'd see that this editor has done significant content creation. There are 15 articles that they have made over 80 edits to, and of those 15, 11 are featured articles or lists, and the remaining 4 are all good articles. As to high delete !votes, they have 65%, which is frankly low -- assuming good faith in AfD nominations, you would expect that most AfD's would end up being closed as delete. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Choosing a notable subject and feriting out details and looking through newspapers, adding categories, links, etc. it is much different than assisting in making an article great. My criteria is: administrators are here to protect content and content creators. running around with a mop here and there is also necessary, but we are building an encyclopedia and it is easier to delete than keep an article. Lightburst (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ahecht: it's worth noting that when working out if someone is more pro keep/delete (not strictly a deletionist/inclusionist decider), redirects should be added to delete !votes. That gives 9% keep, 6% merge and 81% delete/redirect, and so I suspect RP is fairly deletionist. You would always expect a majority (though I know of 2 active editors who defy that basis) even for staunch inclusionists like myself. I'd prefer more keeps, but I don't think RP's judgement is particularly flawed, just slightly different to my own. this discussion probably should move to TP Nosebagbear (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

1. neutral i am not really sure about this candidate. Clone commando sev (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

   Neutral, looks good, but awaiting answers to my questions. NYC Guru (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

   @NYC Guru: erm... neutral section is not a waiting room. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

   Moved to support. NYC Guru (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

   Neutral. From my overview, the nominee has not participated enough in various boards where administrators are necessary for me to feel confident enough they have enough breadth of knowledge of Wikipedia. Also, I think this is the first time I've seen a candidate with such a low edit count compared to their years of service (<20,000 edits with 10+ years service). With all that being said though, it looks like this RFA is going to pass, and though I cannot myself support, I wish the candidate best of wishes in their practically inevitable (at this point) awarding of the admin toolset. Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

   The board participation is a reasonable point (obviously I disagree in weight, but it's not unreasonable), on the latter (and seemingly less significant by your phrasing) I would say that it's perhaps more reasonable to judge them by their activity rate during their non inactive years - which is about 16,000/6 (c. 2600) which is about a 40% increase on their overall rate. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

   ...<redacted> I'm parking it here: In other words, there's a 0% chance I'm moving from here to "support" or "oppose". Steel1943 (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

   No wonder people - even good people - don't really want to go thru RFA. Three days after this completely baseless accusation that there are probably skeletons in the closet that could derail this RFA, it's still just sitting here, unchallenged. No one has pointed out that it is a personal attack, or even questioned the comment at all. "Relax, Floq, it's just the way RFA is. Shrug". Said everybody. <redacted> --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

   ...Umm, k. Steel1943 (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

   ...Also ... "personal attack" ... where? I think the intent of your comment may come off as a WP:OUCH since ... I've already claimed I had no evidence to base it on (ever heard of Spidey sense?) and essentially gave the nominee moral support, so ... wow, it's comments like yours that deter editors from participating in RFAs when they have an opinion that doesn't follow the crowd majority. Steel1943 (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

   ...And I'm not going to revert the redaction, but if what I said is considered a "personal attack" ... wow, I never directly addressed the nominee in any part of my statement while using well-known analogies ... then wow, our generation (I mean everyone, not specific groups of ages of people) is rather strict in how it perceives something to be a "personal attack", and now I fully expect this statement to be redacted too since I'm now talking about a generalized, non-specific group of everybody. I'm almost in tears figuratively laughing here. (But yeah, the response to my statement was totally a personal attack towards me since it was directed towards me specifically by name.) But whatever, it's time for me to apparently <redacted>stop beating a dead horse</redacted>. Steel1943 (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

   Floq, I'm confident Steel1943 is a good person who made mistake, a mistake that you've compounded. A mistake —a speculation of bad faith on intuition— which indeed does not meet standards. Myself, I haven't seen this comment until now or I would have said something to that effect. If possible, let's not sharpen the blades further. El_C 19:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

   ...I think something of this nature was my thought process, but couldn't state so eloquently as El C has said here. In my perspective, I did not see what I said as a personal attack, and if multiple editors say otherwise, I apparently failed in practicing self-reflection prior to my comment, and I owe the nominee an apology. The point I was trying to make was that I've seen some rather dumb stuff derail RFAs, and I wasn't going to go look for anything of the such since though I see the red flag. I don't think the nominee will cause any issues and I commend them on running again over 12 years after their previous one; that takes a ton of courage, and I don't think I could try to do that again any time soon, and my last RFA was only 4 years ago. Steel1943 (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

   ...And I've apparently convinced myself to move over to the "Support" column, so I'll be doing that in the next edit. Wow ... go me! Steel1943 (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

General comments

• Smartyllama, would you discuss how that question would inform your vote? Whether or not a candidate agrees with all policies and if not why just doesn't seem relevant to whether or not a candidate is suitable for adminship unless you ALREADY believe the candidate would act in bad faith if they were confronted with enforcing a policy with which they disagreed. If you think this candidate would act in bad faith in any situation, you probably ought to just oppose now rather than checking which policies they'd prefer to violate. —valereee (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Valereee I will wait until after Red Phoenix answers to reply to that to avoid priming. Smartyllama (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    • a phenomenon whereby exposure to one stimulus influences a response to a subsequent stimulus, without conscious guidance or intention. For example, the word NURSE is recognized more quickly following the word DOCTOR than following the word BREAD.??? I'm not following. —valereee (talk)
      • Maybe that wasn't the right word, it's been a while since I took a psych course. I don't want to subconsciously influence Red Phoenix's response so I'll give him a chance to answer and then I'll explain what I'm looking for. Smartyllama (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
        • First rule of holes: stop digging. Also it's a trap! —valereee (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oh, and now there's 25. What's the record, does anyone know? —valereee (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • To answer your question now that Red Phoenix has responded, I'm more interested in the why than the what. There are times where, as an admin, Red Phoenix will have some discretion as to how to apply policies or guidelines in a way that best improves Wikipedia, and the answer he gave shows me he's capable of doing that. I will !vote shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartyllama (talk • contribs) 01:30, 28 July 2020 (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.