Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ScottishFinnishRadish

ScottishFinnishRadish

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (164/57/6); Scheduled to end 21:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Nomination

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs) – Friends, colleagues, fellow editors, it is my pleasure to present ScottishFinnishRadish‎ as a candidate for adminship. SFR came to my attention with his helpful and well-considered interventions on the talk pages of contentious articles. His extensive work on edit-requests in particular has earned him appreciation, but SFR is far from a one-trick pony; he has a solid portfolio of content work to his name, including two GAs, and has substantial contributions to anti-vandalism and at AfD. SFR has impressed me with his patience, his knowledge of policy, and his communications skills, and I believe he will make an excellent addition to the admin corps. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Co Nomination

I am pleased to co-nominate SFR, a friendly guy whom I also consider to be a friend. SFR displays a breadth and depth of knowledge in various areas, so he knows content and he knows the various plights that content contributors face. Likewise, he exhibits a sound understanding of our policies and guidelines, our procedures and best practices. An understanding which he articulate in a clear and unassuming way. SFR is also familiar with the many challenges that admins face, mostly because he pays attention and asks the right questions.

SFR often takes on resolving challenging, conflict-ridden disputes, doing so with a mixture of bluntness and grace. And above all else, with positive outcomes. He can also frequently be seen grinding on resolving requests that are more mundane and tedious, but which nonetheless are in need of attention. Requests which otherwise would become a source of conflict if left unattended. Critically, he has the kind of rare temperament that does not fracture and which rarely even bends (he even tolerates my incessant spammage, so that says a lot!).

At a time (a long time) in which we are consistently losing far more admins than we are gaining, and where some backlogs have become unwieldy, I know he'll be a welcome addition to the admin corps. So Let's Make RfA Gleat Again [←this is a joke], and let's start right here right now with SFR. As an admin, SFR is sure to positively embiggen the project, so I urge everyone to join me in supporting his nomination! El_C 11:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination, and thanks to Vanamonde93 for convincing me this wasn't a horrible idea. I have never edited for pay, and I do not, nor have I ever, operated another account. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?

A: I plan to do most of my mop-work around AIV, RFPP, and BLP revdels/page protections, as well as adding the fully protected edit requests to my patrolling. I spend a decent chunk of my time patrolling the edit request queues, which gives me a view at an under-patrolled part of Wikipedia, and I often find questionable statements or outright BLP violations. Anything that speeds up the process of getting flagrant BLPvios hidden is a decent boon in my eyes. I also plan to close AfDs and do some copyright work when my time permits.

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

A: I've written a couple GAs (The amazing Rosetta Lawson and her husband Jesse Lawson) and plan to expand Frelinghuysen University to GA and work on articles of some of the associated people. I've rescued a few more from failed drafts (Lisa Winter and Margaret Bartlett Thornton to name a couple) and written an article with a funny name on a topic I discovered researching during an AfD (Shit flow diagram), which are the normal things to cover in this question. I think, however, the contributions I think are most important are my contributions dealing with BLPs. I've made many oversight requests via email, often found during edit request patrolling, to get some vile stuff removed. I spend a decent chunk of time lurking about WP:BLPN and like to think my contributions there are positive, and kept unsourced dross out of many articles. I've also nominated several problem BLP articles for deletion.

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: Well, there was this little thing, but it wasn't overly stressful. I also believe that, for the most part, I've mended fences with most of the editors involved there and we share a mutual respect. We may have different views on how exactly leads should be constructed and sourcing should be used but we all agree that the "healing crystal" that someone gave me at work is just a rock. Things also got pretty heated at JP Sears where balancing WP:BLP, WP:FRINGE, and an overall lack of good sources made for a contentious discussion, but I tried (unsuccessfully) to forge a compromise here that would address the BLP concerns as well as provide the necessary context about the article subject. In general, it takes a lot more than the internet to stress me out, and when I'm feeling stressed I have a beautiful wife, some lovely dogs and cats, and plenty of hobbies to help me recenter myself. I also don't have an issue just removing an article from my watchlist and shrugging, which I did at Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed. It's a big Wiki and I don't have to work on all of it. I don't have a problem stepping away or reducing activity if I'm feeling burnt-out, and if I'm really worked up maybe I'll spend another hundred hours building a bed.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Optional question from CollectiveSolidarity

4. You already have my enthusiastic support, but I would like to ask you : What was your biggest mistake while editing? And what did you learn from it?

A: When I was a newer editor I was responding to either a BLPN or COIN posting dealing with the article on Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed, and with the belief that I was right, I edit warred trying to address the problems with the article. I should not have done that, and now I would be better equipped to get the assistance necessary to resolve the problem. What I learned is that I can just remove the article from my watchlist and walk away, which is what I ended up doing. None of us are under any obligation to fix any specific article, or deal with a dedicated undeclared COI editor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, there was also the time I hid most of an arb case request because I messed up my cot/cob templates. I've gotten better at using them since then. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from GeoffreyT2000

5. I like the nice rhyming words in your username! So, what do the rhyming words mean to you as a Wikipedian?

A: I assume you're asking what my username means? It's a nickname my old college roommate gave me after imagining me as an old timey bare knuckle boxer. Some pilsners were involved as well. I'm pretty sure I have the drawing he made of me as an old timey boxer in a box somewhere. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from TheresNoTime

6. Prior to registering this account, had you previously edited Wikipedia?

A: This is going to be a bit of a broader answer that also covers 10 and 14. I've also explained much of this in the past in different conversations, but not all in the same place all at once. I started editing wikis in around 1999 or 2000, back when the preferred method of wikilinking was TwoCapitals rather than brackets. In the mid-to-early 2000s I also ran two MUDs, and set up a wiki at that point and edited extensively. Starting about a decade ago some pals and I set up a wiki as an easy way to log our tabletop RPG sessions and store our character sheets. Wiki editing is not new to me.

I had made probably a few dozen edits before I created my account. Normal productive IP stuff, copyedits and the like. What I did do that was unusual was read the back pages of Wikipedia, starting somewhere around 8 years ago (based on the job I was working when I started reading). I was always one to check talk pages when reading an article on a contentious topic, and during one of those talkpage reads, I saw a link to ANI or AE, which I checked out. This led me to read a whole lot more about Wikipedia that normal readers never see. It was pretty interesting, from an outside perspective, to see how much went on. Reading those types of discussions, seeing the arguments and results, makes one pretty familiar with a lot of the acronyms and cavernous PAG pages. I've read quite a few arb cases before I started editing, I'm familiar with the Eric Corbett drama, and watched FRAMGATE unfold from the sidelines. I also work in a field that requires reading significant amounts of technical documentation, ATPs, and SOPs, so the policy pages of Wikipedia are not nearly as dense to me as they would be to others.

I started editing because I found myself with some partial down-time at work, where I was sitting at a work station monitoring a test but not needing to use the vast majority of my attention. I figured that I'd read Wikipedia long enough, including all of the internal stuff, that I could lend a hand reasonably well and hopefully without friction. New changes patrol was a nice and easy low bandwidth activity that I could work on while still paying all the necessary attention to the units I was working on. If troubleshooting or refixturing arose I could drop it immediately without losing my place. When I had a bit more time I'd try to help on AfDs, as I knew they were chronically underattended. Fairly quickly I was accused of being a sock. At that point I emailed arbcom directly from my actual, real life, real name email address. I continued using that email address up through the Arbcom case I was involved in. When I was IP blocked and dealing with checkusers and UTRS I disclosed both my real name and employer. My hope was that by being honest in that way I could avoid some of the sock-accusation shenanigans. I don't think that Arbcom or checkusers do "proof of not being a long term crypto-sock" statements, but they've had my personal information for well over a year. Oversighters have access to my real name as well, because my early reports to the OS email were sent when my real email address was still linked to my account. I may expand on this a bit more later, but I'm already a bit late starting my commute, but didn't want to let this sit all day. I'll have some dedicated time to answer questions in depth in about 11 hours. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from Tomorrow and tomorrow

7. I'm curious because it has been raised in the discussion: With the majority of your edits talk pages rather than at main, do you feel that that you have the needed knowledge of content editing?

A:I believe that I have the knowledge necessary for content editing based on my two GAs and several other articles rescued from the WiR failed drafts. There is always more to learn, and I can always get better. I learned a lot watching Uncle G wrap up the article on Darcie Dennigan, which I used when fleshing out the criticism section of Linda M. Morra. The experience of working on those rescued drafts taught me a lot, which is directly responsible for what I was able to do with Rosetta Lawson. I also used working on drafts to try and encourage editors who had their drafts declined, e.g. [1] and [2]. Working with other editors is a big part of creating content, and without those other users I wouldn't have learned about these women. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Optional questions from Wugapodes

8. Citing WP:BLPDS, an administrator has fully protected a high-traffic, controversial biography for 30 days. The full protection is to prevent the insertion of potentially defamatory material to one section of the article pending the conclusion of an RfC on whether to cover the material. You find yourself fielding edit requests on the talk page: under what circumstances (if any) would you edit through full protection?

A:A lot depends on the particular circumstances. How many talk page watchers are there? Is the RFC well attended, and is the talk page active? I would likely edit through protection for any non-contentious copy editing, or well sourced non-contentious material (They received X degree at Y school, here is a secondary RS discussing it). The more active the talk page the more likely I would be to make sure there was positive consensus for any edits, barring simple copy edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

9. An editor requests page protection. You review the edit history and see 50 edits going back 4 years. Those edits are mostly back-and-forth reverts between dynamic IPs (v6 and v4), redlinked usernames, and some names you recognize as recent change watchers, but there are some helpful IPs who improve the page every few weeks. The disruptive editing occurs in clusters, and an RC watcher or helpful IP usually reverts the disruption within a minute or so, though on a few occasions the disruption has lasted for up to an hour.

My question: in this situation, whats action would you take, and why?

A:Depends on the type of disruptive editing. BLPvio in clusters over several years might warrant semi-protection, but other disruption (amongus!!!) would not require protection. If the disruptive editing was recent enough, and still active, a short semi, length dependent on how long the clusters normally last. If the IP ranges are fairly consistent there's also the option of a IP range partial block. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from HouseBlaster

10. Thank you for putting yourself forward at RfA! Below, some people are raising concerns about how quickly you learned your way around the encyclopedia. For example, you knew that [[this]] is called a wikilink on your fourth edit, were asking people to discuss changes on the article's talk page soon thereafter, and made a successful report at AIV, all on your first day! You also made your way to AfD on your second day editing. How did you learn to edit?

A: I think most of this is answered in question 6 above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from Espresso Addict

11. You seem to have created a single article (Shit flow diagram) during your tenure; [ETA] as well as developing a second from a redirect [sorry!]. How well do you feel that you understand the concerns of editors focused on content creation, particularly given your stated interest in working on copyright and closing deletion debates?

A: I also rescued and expanded a number of drafts from the WiR declined drafts list. Rosetta Lawson started as [3] and you can see where it is now. There's a list of other rescued articles on my user page, some better than others. I've done a fair, although not huge, amount of content editing, and I'm familiar with sourcing, copyright, and have a pretty decent record at AfD, including recently when I've mostly been nominating articles. I feel I understand reasonably well the concerns that those who primarily create content. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Optional questions from Ixtal

12. Many editors have questioned your suitability as admin based off your low percentage of mainspace edits. Seeing how you plan on working mostly on AIV, RFPP, and BLPP, how have other areas of the wiki helped you gain experience with PAGs relevant to these areas?

A: A fair amount of my talk page edits are reverting vandalism and disruption, and I see edit request patrolling as a type of Recent Changes patrol for an area that doesn't see nearly enough patrolling. Protected pages, by definition, have experienced disruptive editing and once protection is applied that often is shunted to the talk page. I've got about 90 requests for page protection, and over 200 AIV reports, so I have significant experience in those areas. There's also a fair number of LTAs that I'll report immediately to an admin familiar with the situation. I do a lot with BLP, and am active at BLPN, and although I can be a bit gnashing-at-the-bit about it, I think my edits in that area are generally well received, within consensus and a positive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

13. Would you be open to recall? If so, under what criteria?

A: If three editors I respect ask me to resign over a single action/judgement call/pattern of behavior, I will. No running a confirmation RFA or any of that. Just as an example, if Ponyo, StarMississippi and Sideswipe9th told me I crossed the line, that's it. I'll turn in my tools. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from MaxnaCarta

14. Given the concerns raised by others that you have possibly edited previously without disclosing, please can you explain how you became familiar with vandalism, what AIV is, and how to report someone there the same day you started editing?? While newbies are not always clueless, this shows rather advanced knowledge for someone’s first day of editing.

A: This is another that I think is covered by question 6. That aside, I was looking at my first edits thinking about if there was any expansion I could offer on this and found this gem. If question 6 didn't answer this, let me know and I'll try and elaborate more. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from Clayoquot

15. Do you have any comments on your handling of edit requests? This is a totally optional question - I saw your question on the Talk page and wanted to make sure there is space for you to say something on this issue if you wish.

A: So, edit requests. I'm not sure what exactly spurred me to become the edit request machine I am (over 10000 edit requests handled, over 1000 implemented), but it's my main "low bandwidth" activity on Wikipedia right now. I don't always have 20+ hours to spend reading hundred year old newspapers or academic works on sociologists of color, but I can generally find a few moments to glance at new edit requests and address them. It's clear that my response at the Climate change edit request was not my finest moment, and I'm not proud of it. Clearly I misread, and a bit of contrition after being called out on it would have gone a long way. I'm sorry for that behavior, and I'll strive to do better. That is, however, a single example out of 10,000.

I have been involved in (I believe) all of the recent discussion about edit requests. One began after GorillaWarfare approached me on my talk page about my use of the X to Y template. That discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Edit_requests/Archive_1#Requiring_verbatim_suggestions, which had the widest participation of any of the recent discussions. I agreed with much of what GorillaWarfare said, and adjusted my use of templates, including more details in declines, rather than almost always using a bare template. The discussion had some consensus for adjusting and adding to the templates to make them more descriptive and helpful to new editors. There was also, I think, a reasonable demonstration that my behavior is standard and accepted practice. Later, valereee approached me about my edit request responses. I again adjusted my edit request replies to be more descriptive more often, and we both agreed that the templates should be more helpful.

A change was made to the edit request response template a few months later, and was discussed at Template_talk:ESp#change_commonly-used_template_wording? I made a change to template, adjusting the change that was already made. I felt there was a reasonable consensus for this type of alteration, but the edit was reverted, and yet again discussion stopped. Just a few days ago another discussion was started at Wikipedia_talk:Edit_requests#Responding_to_“edit_semi-protected_request”_on_talk_pages, where I said this is due for wider discussion. That discussion is, as of now, inactive. I've adjusted my handling of edit requests in response to feedback each time it's been given, and have tried to work towards the goal everyone seems to want. A general lack of interest and discussions dying out is hampering this process. I am always willing to accept feedback on my editing, and although I may not always agree, I will always listen and consider.

There has been a focus on a few limited edit requests that I handled incorrectly, or that other editors disagree with. For every one of those there are hundreds of edits like these: searching for sources to get gender identity correct, removing BLP issue, checking sources and discussing the source with other editors. Other edit requests have led me to start RFCs or build consensus through discussion, like at Talk:Timothée_Chalamet/Archive_1#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_4_June_2022, Talk:Timothée_Chalamet/Archive_2, Talk:Timothée_Chalamet#RFC_on_nationality_in_the_lead_and_shortdesc, Talk:Jerusalem#Should_the_infobox_contain_this_flag_and_emblem?, and Talk:Somaliland/Archive_4#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_11_March_2021. A couple of those are recent, and one is from when I was a new editor, and was pretty pleased that the edit request worked out as it did.

Lastly, there has been concern about my handling of edit requests turning off potential new editors. One of the supporters above, ActivelyDisinterested created an account partly due to their interactions with me handling their edit requests. Again, I have made mistakes in the past, I've adjusted my behavior in response to feedback, and I've also attracted new editors with my edit request patrolling and communication. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, I reach out for help when I'm unsure about edit requests in a topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from Banks Irk

16. Question removed. Primefac (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

A:

Optional questions from Schwede66

17. This expands on question 15 but is more specific. In oppose #14, User:Clayoquot cites a specific example of your response to both an edit request and Clayoquot challenging you on it. Given a few additional months of experience, would you do anything differently these days? Schwede66 20:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

A: This should be clear from question 15, but that was a fuck up on my part. If I could go back, I'd read it more carefully, or failing that, I wouldn't have been a dick about not having seen the actual request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that answers it just fine. Schwede66 05:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Optional questions from Tryptofish

18. Editors here have raised concerns about your editing at Ariel Fernandez, where you repeatedly removed content that editors at WP:BLPN concluded had been in violation of WP:BLP. Let's imagine that, instead, you had come to that dispute as an uninvolved administrator. What administrator tools, if any, would you have used in that situation? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

A: While the dispute was active, and there was discussion at BLPN that clearly displayed there were good faith BLP concerns by editors in good standing, page protection while the discussion ran its course, and blocking the sock that kept popping up, of course. Early page protection during good faith BLP disputes can help keep editors from getting blocked, which is a pretty big positive, and it also forces discussion and consensus building. Better to leave something out that has been objected to in a good faith way while it's being discussed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

19. As a follow-up, let's imagine that another administrator had already enacted full protection before you got there, and the protected version contained the paragraph that was contested as a possible BLP issue, and editors on the talk page were supporting its inclusion. What if anything would you have done? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

A: Discuss it with the administrator and express my concerns around BLPRESTORE and the content while there is on-going good faith discussion on BLPN about it. If that failed, a solid shrug and move on. As Dumuzid often says, reasonable people may disagree. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Optional questions from Ruwaym

20. Do you believe in Persecution of the Wikimedians which caused by User access levels? What you think about an admin who can judges, labels and take action in just one minute?

A: Somehow I missed this question, sorry about that. I don't believe that, in general, there is persecution of editors based on their access levels, permissions or flags. In my experience, which may be different than others, unless acting in an administrative capacity or using their tools administrators behave much the same as other editors and are, for the most part, treated the same.

As far as an administrator taking action in under a minute, that's often enough time to determine that there is disruption that should be addressed, and without seeing a specific circumstance I can't make any concrete judgement. Mistakes happen, however, as do bad days, misreading, and misjudging. It's easy to, after spending a significant amount of time dealing with disruption, mistake some good faith edits for disruption or simply take the wrong action regarding them. This has happened to me when doing recent changes patrol and while responding to edit requests. What's important in that circumstance is to accept responsibility and try and make it right, e.g. [4] [5] [6] [7]. On the other end, it's also nice to recognize when concerns that may bother you are valid, and to AGF when a mistake has been made and not assume that there was malicious intent. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. But i belive that, i felt that, i got affected by that. It's clear that in general, there is persecution of editors resulted by the others access levels, permissions or flags in some wikis, including Persian and Arabic. This is what you need to know as an English Wikipedia administrator:recognizing their persecution in their homewiki. Some of them have taken refuge here, EnWiki. @ScottishFinnishRadish: You can take my case as example, easy to check, done by El C in 30 September 2019 and continued until 10 June 2021, he who blocked me "with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing: competence issues as well as repeated ethno-nationalist aggression and personal attacks)" while i was newbie then, for more see my talkpage: User talk:Ruwaym#Indefinite block. What would you do if you were El C in September 2019? How you treat a newbie user whos native language is not English? --Ruwaym (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that commenting on what I would do in a three year old situation in which I have no familiarity or context is very productive. I will note that indefinite is not infinite, and an acceptable unblock request displaying that you understood the issues with your editing would likely have resulted in an unblock. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Optional questions from Beccaynr

21. Under what circumstances would you recuse yourself from acting as an administrator?

A: I would recuse in any of the standard situations, including when dealing with editors with whom I've had extensive interactions. WP:INVOLVED is a good rule, and I would follow it. There aren't any specific situations or topics I can think of that I would recuse from, however. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

22. Please explain how you plan to approach disputes related to the Scientific skepticism topic area as an administrator, including whether or when you would recuse and any exceptions to a recusal.

A: I'd approach them much like I try to approach any dispute, neutrally and with a level head. I wouldn't recuse from the topic area, although I'm clearly INVOLVED with many of the active editors in the topic, so don't expect any admin action from me dealing with them. A review of my recent edits in the topic area might help to quell some concerns, where I helped to gut a pile of cruft from an article based on a WP:FRINGEN thread (Wim Hof). I also had a nice interaction with Susan Gerbic after I did some cleaning on Seatbelt Psychic (which I should get back to when I have the time). ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that I informed Sgerbic that I mentioned her here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from Sideswipe9th

23. Are there any content areas that you feel as though you may be too involved, and so would recuse yourself from taking administrative actions in?

A: I think I answered that above, just a moment ago, but not really, no. I would certainly avoid any administrative actions with editors I've had disagreements with in the past, or those that are wikipals. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from Paradise Chronicle

24.Hi SFR, this question is based on your answer number 6 but I believe is of interest for most Wikipedians. Is there really a job to read Wikipedia (discussions), I mean just to read and not to edit?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

A: I think maybe I wasn't clear with how I explained that. I know it was roughly eight years ago based on the job I was working when I started reading the back pages of Wikipedia. At the time I had to monitor spectrum analyzers, often for several hours at a go, so having some reading material on-hand while I kept an eye out for spurious signals was handy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from Steel1943

25. I've been reading a lot of opposes regarding this not being your first account, so I thought I'd try the following question to ease their concerns: Have you ever edited either Wikimedia projects other that the English Wikipedia (such as an alternative language version of Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, etc.) or a site that uses the MediaWiki framework (such as Fandom [formerly Wikia]) prior to regularly editing the English (this) Wikipedia? (Please be careful how you answer this question to avoid accidentally WP:OUTING yourself.)

A: When I was setting up the wiki for my friends and I to track our tabletop role-playing I tried Wikia, but it was hot garbage, so I went with another provider. I've probably made a few edits to various Wikia wikis in the past, but it could have been hosted on another provider. The wiki I set up for my muds was a mediawiki, if I recall correctly, but that was nearly two decades ago, so I could be wrong. I've also used the horrible Microsoft SharePoint wiki software at various jobs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I just checked on the ol' way back machine. It was a MediaWiki. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from Robert McClenon

26. Since you plan to work at RFPP, I would like to know when you think Extended=Confirmed Protection should be used, both on existing articles, and for Create-Protection of titles that have been repeatedly created and deleted. ECP is a relatively new level of protection in between semi and full, and it appears that some admins apply it more frequently than others.

A: We'll start with the obvious, any place where arb sanctions cover its use. Past that, there are certainly articles and topics that are targets of editors who have no problem making several accounts, editing their userpage or sandbox ten times, then waiting a few days. If there is frequent disruption of that sort, then ECP is one of the better tools. The main goal of protection is to prevent the minimum number of editors from having access to edit, so I would aim to only use ECP in situations where the disruption caused by autoconfirmed editors is significant enough to require protection. I look like this, if after semi the article is being disrupted enough that it would be semi protected if the autoconfirmed editors were IPs, ECP is a reasonable choice. If semi stops 90 percent of the disruption, and we're left with vandalism once a month, that would probably not warrant ECP. The exception to that would be for BLP concerns, for example if an article were semi-protected but once a month there was still an edit made intentionally misgendering an article subject, or claiming they committed a crime or other plain-as-day BLPvio, ECP would probably be the way to go. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from SandyGeorgia

27. Your answer to Q6 singles out Eric Corbett (Malleus), along with FRAMGATE (two very different situations). Could you explain why you considered the Malleus what-you-called-"drama" worth singling out, and discuss your take on why and how Wikipedia lost this prolific content creator, and what you might do if you observe similar situations unfolding? That is, how is what happened to Mally relevant to your views on adminship?

A: I singled it out because I'm pretty sure it's well known in the community. Arbcom, AE, talk page fights, ANI threads. Seeing that gives a fair view into the disciplinary system of Wikipedia, and would hopefully demonstrate how I was familiar with some of that when I began.

As for what happened, and what I would have done? Damn, the combined efforts of the community couldn't figure that out. A would say a huge part of that would be having the necessary report with them. A few well placed words from someone who they respect can go a long way, but that was also done in this case. Some people are just going to be themselves, and either the community will accept it, or it won't. It's unfortunate, but that's just how it shakes out sometimes.

If the situation were similar, but not quite so writ in stone, all you can do is try to mediate between the groups that see the behavior as acceptable or not acceptable, and try to convince the editor to moderate their behavior. If the editor is at all receptive to being asked to moderate their behavior, that can go a long way towards keeping them around and mitigating the blowups that arise. There are some similarities to ARBSCE, where it really never needed to go to Arbcom. A few well placed words from editors or admins that people respected could have defused a lot of the issues early on. Some of the incivility could have been addressed and some of the BLP concerns that were doubled down on later could have been avoided. Unfortunately, things were pretty adversarial and that didn't happen, and we ended up where we did, which was about the worst outcome. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from SandyGeorgia

28. You indicated here at 17:42, September 12, 2022 that you were waiting for third co-nom. A few hours later, you launched the RFA without removing !votes entered pre-launch, and without the third co-nom. Several editors have raised a "barreling ahead" concern. Could you explain the circumstances of going ahead without that third co-nom, whether they examined your editing history and discussed it with you, re whether you might have been well advised to take a slower launch being more forthright about previously expressed concerns, and might your third co-nom be interested in addressing why they didn't appear?

A: To start with, I am exceptionally happy at Bon courage's comment. Earlier on my talk page some editors had inquired about a possible RFA, and I responded that I'd rather hear from people I've had disagreements with. They were at the top of that list. They're also on the list of editors I shared with my co-noms when I discussed my plan for recall before the RFA started. There are other names that were on that list, but trying to list every editor I respect is a lost cause.

Sorry about not removing the votes. If someone had mentioned that, I would have. I was mostly happy that I didn't break either of the pages when I opened it. When I approached them, they accepted but said they were busy in the near future. I think there was likely a bit of miscommunication, because shortly after I said that they would co-nom Vanamonde93 created the RFA page. I gave it a bit, but editors were already noticing and commenting on it. I figured at that point it was better just to get it started. When you're standing with your toes in the pool, and you know it's going to be cold and unpleasant, at some point you need to just jump in.

The other co-nom hasn't been in contact with me since before the RFA started, which I accepted as a possibility when they told me they are busy. I'm not sure if they've changed their mind after reading some of this discussion, if they haven't had the time to come up with a statement they're happy with, or really anything. Regardless, they're still an editor I respect, even if they showed up to oppose.

I'm also kind of kicking myself in the ass right now, after reading Spartaz's support. I almost reached out to them instead of the other, but I decided against it because, in part, I wasn't sure if the barnstar Spartaz gave me was a joke, or actually serious. I kinda screwed the pooch on that one, eh?

Lastly, on an unrelated note, in situations and discussions like this everyone can use a little humor break from time to time, so I'd like to reveal that every time I grab my wife's chromebook to answer these questions, rather than trying to do it on my phone, my wife says, "Why don't you answer for your crimes, you Scottish Finnish Bitch!" She doesn't really understand what an RFA is, or what this discussion entails, but that line is absolutely hilarious and everyone needs a good chuckle in a discussion like this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. First! El_C 16:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
2. Support SFR and I have not agreed on everything, but they seem to be WP:CLUEful and to play it straight even in controversial areas, and that counts for a lot. Bon courage (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
3. Support support support! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
4. Support My only regret is that I can support this but once. SFR is one of my favourite editors, and per El_C's co-nomination statement above, I agree has all of the skills and understanding we like to see from admins. I think they will be a fantastic holder of the mop. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
5. Support Excellent candidate who will make a fine addition to the admin corps. scope_creep^Talk 22:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
6. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
7. Support. User can be trusted with the admin mop. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 22:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
8. support per nominators. seen 'em around.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

   enthusiastic support -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

   Continued support per supports following mine. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

9. Support, I've hoped to see this for a while now, and certainly have no reservations now that I do. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
10. Pile-on support Andre🚐 22:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
11. Support. POS (for pile-on support) . More candidates like this, please! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 22:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
12. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
13. support seems ok--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
14. Support. I have been impressed with SFR's deft hand at resolving disputes and edit requests in high-conflict areas. Simply put, we need more admins like him. Generalrelative (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

    With regard to SFR's talk page versus mainspace editing breakdown, Sideswipe9th's comment in the "General comments" section below articulates my own thoughts better than I can. Contentious topics require a tremendous amount of talk page discussion. Without mature and patient editors like SFR prioritizing such discussions, work in these areas would grind to a halt, or worse, devolve into lowest-common-denominator behavior. The idea that this is somehow divorced from the actual work of content creation strikes me as misconceived. In fact, the best way to generate content in contentious topic areas is very often through the laborious process of consensus-building on the talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

15. Support. Sure. But always remember... CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
16. Support. Being an admin should not be a big deal. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 23:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
17. Support. BilledMammal (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
18. Support. Easy support. This editor is always pretty great to work with! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
19. Support, absolutely and completely. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
20. Support Of course! Beccaynr (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
21. Support. No concerns. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
22. Support Oh my goodness, yes and please. Absolutely would be a net positive with the tools. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
23. Support Great work on edit requests and reverting unhelpful edits! GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
24. Supprt Admins who are willing to do behind the scenes tasks are greatly needed, and I really have no reason to oppose, as any accusations of being a sock are currently evidentiary baseless. Sea Cow (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
25. Support I’ve seen this user around. This user will enjoy having the mop. Sarrail (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    That the candidate would enjoy having the mop is among the strongest arguments to oppose.Banks Irk (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    That might be the worst argument I've seen in about 12 years of watching RfAs. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

26. Support. Oh my God. I cannot take the complaints about SFR's tenure seriously. Two years is enough time to learn the essentials three times over. About the mainspace percentage: Do you guys realize there are other tasks to do here? We're set to tank under 1000 admins in January and it'll only decrease from there. And here we are talking about mainspace percentage, as if he hasn't made 5,000 edits and created a good article there anyway. —VersaceSpace 🌃 02:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    And re the concerns about figuring things out so quickly: I think the more experienced Wikipedians have a bad tendency to assume that any editor who gets into the rhythm too quick is a sockpuppet. That happened to me too. Guess I'll eat my words if this ends up being a clean start or worse, but I heavily doubt either of those are the case here. —VersaceSpace 🌃 02:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

27. Support I’m a relatively new editor, but I’ve seen SFR’s work and think they would make an excellent addition to the admin team. I also have tremendous respect for the opinions and judgment of our two co-nominations, and have no reason to doubt their conclusion that SFR would be a good admin. Regarding some comments concerning SFR’s ratio of Talk-to-Mainspace edits: While I understand these concerns, I believe they are misplaced. We are discussing whether SFR should be made an admin, not whether SFR should be promoted to the (non-existent) position of “Editor Who Contributes Lots of Mainspace Content.” The work I’ve seen from SFR on Talk pages is precisely what qualifies them for the position of admin: behind-the-scenes negotiation and dispute deescalation. ThanksForHelping (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
28. Support. I believe this editor has protentional to become a good admin on the platform.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 03:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
29. Support. I've had the pleasure of working with ScottishFinnishRaddish in quite a few places. They are a great editor, and would make a good admin. There is unhelpful scrutiny on their number of edits and how long they've been here. We should not be counting it in the hundreds of thousands or in decades. SWinxy (talk) 04:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    I'd like to amend my support by saying that they are an editor who I've always assumed was an admin, only to realize they weren't. My reactions to learning that information is always "why aren't they an admin, then?" SWinxy (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

30. Support As someone who firmly believes that, unless you're creating new articles by yourself, you should be editing talk pages far more than you should be editing main, I believe someone who spends a lot of time on talk pages is an asset to the community. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
31. Support, ScottishFinnishRadish is one the greatest editors editing here and he'll be a great admin! -----Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 05:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
32. Support, Seems more than qualified and clearly capable of helping.DocFreeman24 (talk) 06:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
33. Support, naturally, as nominator. And I want to note that percentage of edits by namespace is a rather poor indicator of whether a candidate knows what's what with content. Talk page content discussions (which SFR has participated in a lot of) do a lot more for one's understanding of content than anti-vandalism or category cleanup, and yet the latter categories will inflate your mainspace contributions quite substantially. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    Just seeking clarification, as nominator what are your thoughts on concerns raised about SFR not being a new editor or their responses here? Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 07:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    @Tomorrow and tomorrow: Thanks for asking nicely. When I offer to nominate a candidate, I do so after investigating their record quite thoroughly, and I was aware of both discussions you link above. I spent quite literally days searching for evidence that SFR was here for non-constructive purposes, and failed to find any. I'll note that I consider hat-collecting non-constructive, and didn't find evidence of that, either: I had to persuade SFR to run, rather than him needing to persuade me. I also chatted with others who did similar investigation, and spoke with SFR about his history, and the responses contained further lack of evidence of malicious intent. I don't think it's reasonable for to continue to be suspicious after all that: I'd never get anywhere, on Wikipedia least of all. I'd also like to point to the eloquent answer given by my previous nominee Wugapodes, when asked a similar question: "it shouldn't be strange that someone read the fucking manual" (I'd encourage you to read his full response).

    With respect to your other concern; I do not think it is in any way a bad thing for an admin to be a strict enforcer of BLP; not only is it a core policy, it's one of the few areas in which Wikipedia and its editors can face legal consequences. It's an unfortunate reality that we have any number of articles on people not in the public eye, whose questionable activities we cannot document, because no source that's good enough has paid them attention. Under the circumstances, I do believe SFR was justified in demanding a consensus building discussion. That discussion, and the reverting that occurred during it, got more heated than it should have: but if it's the number of reverts SFR made that concerns you, I'd point to his answer to Q4. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    Thanks for responding. I figured you would likely have looked into this so glad to hear your thoughts. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

34. Support, I am unconvinced by the opposes at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
35. Support Yeah. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
36. Support based on excellent tenure, accomplishments in various fora, and, yes, personal positive feelings towards the editor. I do not mean to downplay the content issues. I would significantly prefer a more content-oriented editor myself, all else equal. Still, all else is rarely equal, and I have a high opinion of SFR's potential for adminship. Vaticidalprophet 08:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
37. Support. I'm sure if I looked at his noticeboard posts, I could find something I disagreed with. And we have very different pie charts. But from one precocious editor to another (my fifth edit after registering, I think I had one IP edit before I registered, but it's been a while; note that I used another article as a template for biographical format and wiki-syntax, and wrote in Word, and I've been told I would have been blocked as an obvious sockpuppet of somebody experienced if I hadn't failed to preview and note that Word on my laptop was still set to smart quotes), I like the cut of his jib. Looking at the discussion on his user talk referred to in a couple of Opposes, I'm impressed by the candidate's calm and to the point responses, including his suggestion that the ongoing discussion at BLPN is a more appropriate place to discuss. Looking at his edit summaries in rejecting edit requests, linked in another Oppose, I expected to find he was just templating; but he gives a reason each time. An important part of being an admin is explaining things to people, so I was concerned about that, and I did wince a bit at this talk page section referred to in another oppose, but that was an unfortunate collision between, on the one hand, a well-meaning newbie with a valid point that, since we have an entire article on the specific issue, was to a large extent a matter of balance, and on the other an experienced edit request patroller (and most edit requests languish unexamined, this editor is doing something much needed, and doing it competently and with a good grasp of relevant policies) who saw a wordy, value-laden post that buried the actual request (I read it twice and I still can't quite see what specific edit was being requested). With two GAs, the candidate has two more than I will ever have (I used to write articles, and I still sometimes improve them, but I've never competed in that arena). His other mainspace contributions are useful: the first-day edit linked in an Oppose as an example of precocious knowledge of link syntax usefully applies specialized knowledge to inform the reader, I'm very glad he made it. He seems to have a good head on his shoulders, does explain himself, and gives a very good account of why he needs the tools. 19 months of high activity is sufficient for me; others may differ of course, but the one thing I would advise is, if you do become an admin, remember that lesson from Talk:Climate change; especially as an admin, you need to remember that the obvious response isn't always the right one, and in particular, that someone's communication style may mask something you hadn't thought of and should take into account—in this instance, someone pointed out that there was actually a valid edit request buried in there, along with a source (although a better one was available). This may be the longest Support made here, but here's the end of it :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 09:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
38. Support IMO two years is enough experience. More importantly their understanding of policies and practice shows that they'll make a good admin.. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
39. Support The editor knows how to properly skin and clean a rabbit. →StaniStani 10:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
40. Support I've seen them around and they gave me a positive impression. I find arguments about tenure unconvincing: 19 months is plenty to learn. SFR did have a precocious beginning, which required a very good explanation. I'm a disappointed that people opposed before giving them the chance to reply, as I found the explanation convincing. We see a very steep learning rate in the first few hours of editing, but anti-vandal work isn't so difficult that this is completely unrealistic. Are we thinking too much about Eostrix here? Another set of opposes are about answering edit requests. I think we're partially blaming SFR for a fundamental fault in the edit request system, where the standard answers are not well-aligned with what new editors expect. Perfectly fine requests that need consensus are answered (using Template:EP) with a red  Not done for now:, and requests without a reliable source with Not done. This neglects the fact that new editors often use edit requests in an attempt to open discussions. I see talk and mainspace both as content areas, so not worried about a low mainspace percentage. Femke (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
41. Support I think the nominators have got it right. The lack in experience in editing actual content is certainly a minus but the general picture is fine. Nxavar (talk) 11:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
42. Weak support I'm not concerned about the length of time (if it was under a year I'd be concerned), and no inherent problem with newbies with a clue. Only about 18% of edits to mainspace is a bit of a concern (hence me saying weak), but they have a couple of GAs and edit request experience at least. More content creation would be better though. I'm sure I'd disagree with some talk page comments (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climate_change/Archive_90#Greater_regard_for_Indigenous_People_as_related_to_Climate_Change), but overall is a net positive. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    @Kj cheetham: you forgot to sign your comment 😀 X-750 _{List of articles that I have screwed over} 12:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    D'oh! -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    Changing to being no longer "weak", given reasonable responses to questions since this RfA began. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

43. Support seems ok Dhoru 21 (talk・contribs) 12:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
44. support SFR has a clue and is no nonsense we need more admins like that. I am unconvinced by the opposition based on his tenure here. he has more recent experience than dozens of our legacy admins. PICKLEDICAE🥒 12:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
45. Support I've seen good work from them and the opposes based on suspicion of socking without concrete evidence are unconvincing. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
46. You have my support. Very disheartened to see opposes due to experience, despite the candidate having been here for close to two years with no gaps in activity, and content creation, despite the GAs. Now the baseless sock accusations are being thrown around. I've been dealing with sockpuppets on Wikipedia for a while now, and have come to learn that not every new editor starts out totally clueless. Sro23 (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
47. Support I've seen this candidate around and they do a lot of good work. Two years is long enough, and I'm not convinced by the opposes. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
48. Support answer to Q6 is perfectly reasonable; I know many people who have done similar things. ScottishFinnishRadish is a generally productive behind-the-scenes editor and I see no issue with them being an admin. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
49. It appears that most opposes are of the three primary arguments: 1. low percentage of mainspace edits 2. low tenure and that 3. knows things from the start. The evidence has been presented, and whether these three affect the ability of performing administrative actions is entirely subjective. I personally do not find an association. 0xDeadbeef 13:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
50. If you judge editors by mainspace percentage, or you think it's difficult to learn how to file AIV on the first day, you're clueless. SFR has clue. Levivich^😃 14:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
51. Support. Have seen this user around and his consistency and dedication is evident, particularly when it comes to dealing with edit requests. Would make a good admin. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
52. Support Given the prevalence of Wikis these days, and for at least a decade prior to this, I don't find it at all unusual that someone would have had experience with the format prior to coming to Wikipedia. We don't have an exclusive claim to it, after all. I also remain unconvinced by the opposes. And since so many think adminship is "no big deal," if he messes up it should be easy enough to rectify. SFR seems to have a clue to me and is certainly more active than many legacy admins (and likely much more up to date with current policy and practice). Intothatdarkness 14:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
53. Support. Fully qualified candidate. I agree with most of the supportive comments above. The opposers have relied on four main grounds. (1) The first is that the candidate hasn't been editing long enough. I disagree with the idea that more than a year's experience at most is needed to evaluate a candidate's judgment and commitment. (I passed my RfA, by a wide margin, after six months' editing, and while Wikipedia is more complicated today than it was in 2007, it isn't that much more complicated.) (2) The second is disbelief that this is the candidate's first and only account. I find arguments based on "candidate understood how a wiki works too quickly" to be generally weak given the number of other wikis that now exist, and I find the answer above to Q6 completely credible. (I also have some empathy with the position the candidate is now in; early in my wiki-career I was told that I was almost certainly a sock for much the same reasons.) (3) The third is the namespace-balance issue (too much time doing "admin-y" stuff rather than editing articles). While a perfect candidate might have more article-writing experience, perfect candidates don't often happen, and experience on the administrative side of things (yes, even including some "drama," as long as one isn't often the cause of the drama) is also valuable for a future admin. (4) The fourth is an occasional ill-thought handling of an edit-request. I advocate for patience with all good-faith editors, especially newcomers, but again the candidate's explanation is reasonable, and in any event I try not to judge people based on isolated mistakes. I will keep an eye on this RfA, including the answers to the remaining questions that will be forthcoming later today, and on any additional information that may be presented, but based on what I have seen so far ScottishFinnishRadish would do good work as an admin. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
54. Need more root vegetables, but more seriously, the Radish has been someone great to work with both on content and admin-lite areas, including flagging issues to the needed folks and patrolling where possible. A net positive to admin corps. Star Mississippi 15:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    @Star Mississippi: you rang? :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    but you're an accidental spelling bee @Theleekycauldron so oppose as confusing ;-) Star Mississippi 18:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

55. Support. Looks good. No issues that I can see. Bearian (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
56. Support. I've been an administrator for seven years and I still have yet to be named Editor of the Week like you have. I'm a bit jealous. Clean block log, and my standard noticeboard search finds lots of participation, but not much in the way of drama. Wikipedia has too many non-administrator administrators and it's about time more of them like you summoned up the courage to run. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
57. Support — thank you for answering my Q6. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 16:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
58. Support – I've seen you around answering edit requests like it's your calling in life. As for the socking allegations, it'd be hypocritical of me to give them weight when my early editing history is kind of sketchy in hindsight [8]. I also think you are capable of admitting when you're wrong, even in your early edits [9]. With answering more than 9,000 edit requests, I think that there's one diff being repeatedly pointed to where you could have done something differently is a good sign. Editing Wikipedia isn't rocket science. I'd also like to point out for discussions about this in general, new editors are often linked to the Task Centre which mentions things that supposedly new editors wouldn't know about and that the Community portal linked on the side of the main page also exists. Suggested edits encourage new editors nowadays to add wikilinks and short descriptions [10] Not to mention offline editathons, other sites that use MediaWiki (e.g. wikiHow), how Wikipedia has been around for more than 20+ years and we don't have some arcane secret knowledge to participating here... Clovermoss (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC), edited 20:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
59. Support. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
60. Support – In my opinion, I have found SFR to be clueful and competent, and I am not concerned about misuse of the mop. I remain unconvinced by the opposes based on low tenure, and find the ones based on "too skilled for a n00b" to be bordering on ridiculous. –FlyingAce^✈hello 16:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
61. Support – I'd have liked to see more content creation but I can't see a good reason to oppose. Deb (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
62. Unconvinced by opposes. It's a shame that 18 months of relatively high activity is considered by many "too soon". In 18 months, SFR has made 80% of the number of edits I've made in 14 years. Can't find any fault with non-dramaboard edits. Don't always agree with them at AN/ANI, but they seem to have clue and don't seem likely to abuse the bit. The baseless evidence-free accusation of "hat collecting" is a good example of things I wish could be somehow prevented in RFA discussions, but oh well. Anyway, based on not agreeing with me 100% all the time, they aren't perfect, but I don't want to let perfect be the enemy of the good. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
63. Support – Gets my 'thumbs up'.—Aquegg (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
64. Support – I find the sock and tenure arguments unconvincing. Definitely going to be a net positive. W42 17:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
65. Support – great contributor, seen them around. Oppposing arguments aren't very convinving to me. Madeline (part of me) 17:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
66. Support – Have seen them in numerous areas of Wikipedia helping out, removing nonsense. I think they would be a fantastic administrator. Blanchey (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
67. Because pearl-clutching at knowing how to wikilink things is really over the top WP:ABF. ansh.666 17:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
68. Coming off my first real wiki break in years support because so many of the opposes are based on ridiculous concerns that have already been adressed. Also, since when is two years "very new to the project"? That's weak. --Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
69. Support, moving off of the neutral section – I was mildly worried about the accusations of socking, but your answer to Q6 more than clears it up. I fail to see the validity of an argument for or against adminship based off of the namespace pie chart. SFR has two GAs two their name, that has to be presumed a clear demonstration of content competency in the absence of other evidence. Anyone have a reason why it isn't? I've also yet to see anyone put forward accusations of misconduct. In other words, why not? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
70. Support - I wanted to wait before commenting until they answered the "how did you know so quickly how to get around Wikipedia" questions which they have answered with question 6, and they have answered it in a way that does satisfy my concerns about prior editing with another account. I don't think the length of time here is a concern and they appear to have a clue and are levelheaded, I think this is a good idea. - Aoidh (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
71. Support Seems competent. The unfounded accusations of being a sock are not very credible - I had the same thing happen to me when I first joined, as I was also reading lots of stuff in WP: space before editing. I've seen him around, and he always seemed to be reasonable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
72. Support (edit conflict) - They may not have been here for long but I feel they would be a net positive to the project. In my opinion longevity isn't important if the editor clearly demonstrates competence etc etc etc. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
73. Support - I'm familiar with the candidate through his participation at a WP-related message board. No concerns about his level-headedness. Carrite (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
74. Support I believe that SFR would make a fine admin given their aptitude for understanding our policies and guidelines as well as their ability to communicate effectively. I concur with Newyorkbrad's assessment of the concerns raised in the opposes.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
75. Support. While I understand the concerns noted in the Oppose section, I'm not sure that anything rises to the level of disqualification. I think SFR will do just fine with the mop. Best of luck! SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (contribs)} 19:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
76. Yes! At a time when we are losing many admins while Wikipedia is growing, I don't see the benefit in being picky about the namespaces they edit in or how long ago they joined. SFR has tons of experience not just with edit requests but also writing 2 GAs, which is definitely enough content editing for me. There will be no harm in giving them the mop. --Ferien (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
77. Support Leek and Beeblebrox took the words right out of my mouth. HelenDegenerate(💬📖) 19:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
78. Support I just do not get this concern about content creation. When I became an administrator, lots of people said positive things about my content creation. In 20 months of consistent, regular editing, this candidate has about 5200 mainspace edits. 260 mainspace edits a month. In 13 years of editing, I have about 25,000 mainspace edits. That's about 160 a month. It seems to me like the candidate has been here longer because they have made a consistently positive impression on me. There are many ways to improve the encyclopedia, and this editor is doing so in many ways. I say let's give them another way. Cullen328 (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
79. Support - I was concerned by the sockpuppet suspicions, but the combination of the answer to Q6 alongside Barkeep49's and Vanamonde's comments in the general discussion puts these concerns to rest in my view. With that settled, I'm swayed by the nominators' endorsements. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
80. Support I was worried about the concerns voiced in the oppose section of SFR's lack of experience. They have made significantly more edits to WP than I have and I've been an admin for 11 years. Candidate appears to know what they're doing, has a knowledge of relevant policy and would be a net plus as an admin. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    I think the way that SFR has maintained composure in the face of some distinctly iffy opposes also demonstrates a trait that I consider crucial for admins. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

81. Support. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
82. Support — hako9 (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
83. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
84. Support. I have considered SandyGeorgia's oppose but think SFR's response to Q6 adequately explains why they were able to edit so proficiently right at the start. I am concerned about the link given by Clayoquot in oppose #14, but this is not enough to dent my support. SFR is enthusiastic and knowledgable about the workings of Wikipedia and I think they will make a good admin.-gadfium 20:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
85. Support After reading the comments from the oppose votes I took a step back to reevaluate my vote. I can't really see a solid reason to oppose this nomination. If they are an absolute total screw up of an admin we have processes to address that. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 21:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
86. Support Funny, just last week I was thinking I should email the Radish suggesting they consider RfA. Looks like I was a little late with the thought. Whenever I have encountered them at WP, which is often, I am impressed by their good sense and knowledge of WP policy. I believe they will make a good administrator, and I am unimpressed (not to say dismayed) by all the "yeah, but what if they are a sock or something" talk in the Oppose section. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
87. Support After reading through the opposers' comments, I don't think SFR is a sockpuppet. It also isn't wrong for a user of 20 months to be an admin. There isn't a ten-year time requirement. Nythar^T.C 21:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
88. Support I believe SFR shows enough command of PAGs and character to be a productive admin. Answers have calmed concerns I had, and I consider some support and oppose rationales injudicious in light of both the candidate and the context. Until proof is shown that SFR is a sock-puppet or a malicious actor, I will continue to assume otherwise. Any other way of dealing with people is unconvincing and unethical to me.— Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 22:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
89. Support SFR is the kind of editor we should all want at Wikipedia, and I have no doubt would be the kind of administrator Wikipedia needs. Though editing time has not been extensive, I think it is plenty to indicate character, temperament, and sagacity. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
90. Support per the sufficient answer to question 6. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
91. Support Finding fault with an editor for being too competent and actually reading the rules before editing is certainly a new one on me. Pinguinn 🐧 22:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
92. Support. Answer to Question 6 satisfies me; just because lots of newbies are clueless doesn't mean some of them wouldn't try to read the procedures before commenting so as not to look clueless. As for the percentage of mainspace edits, I couldn't care less about that. Wikipedia doesn't need new content to the extent it used to; a lot of the work nowadays is about tweaking and improving long articles that we already have, which necessitates talk page discussions most of the time. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
93. Support (moving from neutral) as a net positive, largely because of the candidate's answer to Q6. On further reflection, to conflate them with Eostrix seems unfair. Miniapolis 22:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
94. Support - No problems here. No problem with low content and high maintenance editing, somebody has to do it and we do, often side by side. Good luck my friend. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
95. Support Knowing what AIV is, but not knowing how to add a substituted template lines up with their answer to Q6. Their tenure is sufficient, and SFR's low mainspace % is not a concern for me. The same number of mainspace edits (~5,000) would not raise eyebrows if the user had 10,000 total edits. "Punishing" someone for having additional experience is counterintuitive. We cannot let Icewhiz loom large over RfA. To editors opposing because SFR might be a sock: imagine how gleeful any LTA would feel if they managed to sabotage the encyclopedia by their mere existence and fear of their past actions. Net positive, helpful, kind, edit requests have a massive backlog. What more can we want? WP:NOBIGDEAL is a policy, let's follow it. HouseBlaster^talk 23:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
96. Support In some ways SFR is the perfect admin candidate. Well up on policy, willing to spend hours on arcana (edit requests, I'm looking at you!), willing to ask questions when stuck, and generally trusted not to break things. Looking at the opposes, I seriously doubt that SFR is some sort of "troll mole sock" biding their time till they become an admin to destroy Wikipedia. Possible, I suppose. Probable, not. Odds are we will gain a lot with Admin ScottishFinnishRadish. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
97. Support The inflated demands of RfA must be at an all-time high, somewhat mirroring real-life inflation rate. This editor clearly found time to start editing during the pandemic. And boy did we have a lot of time staying at home during lockdown. I didn't buy into the ridiculous demands from some opposers. I was promoted to admin when my account was only 1.5 years old. And those "editor spent too much time on talk"? When I was promoted, my mainspace contribution was only 33% of total edits. I had far less mainspace edits (~1700) when I was promoted, compared to SFR (~5200). And if you look at the proportion edits to talk page, it comprised 42% of my total edits. I prefer an admin who has diverse experience in many areas (portal, draft, template spaces) over a mainspace specialist. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
98. Support I am not particularly convinced by any of the themes I'm seeing in the oppose votes. There's this reliance on percentages which completely ignore that SFR is primarily concerned with edit requests and delving into building compromises, two things which necessitate talk page conversations. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 00:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
99. Support. The candidate has written two good articles, and their participation in talk and project space shows a strong and broad understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Approximately two years of experience is sufficient for adminship, and the candidate's history of over 29,000 edits constitutes consistent activity that easily overcomes the rising standards set by RfA inflation. The candidate demonstrates effective communication skills in their answers to the questions.
    It is not reasonable to expect every Wikipedia user to be completely oblivious before creating an account. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are available for unregistered users to view, our noticeboards are completely open-access, and the inner workings of Wikipedia are also covered in the press. Within our community, there are some editors who read the relevant policies and guidelines before making an account or participating in a community process. This is just like someone reading the manual for an appliance that they purchased before using it. Not everyone does it, and doing it may make you look precocious to others, but being prepared is something that should be encouraged, not vilified. If someone has credible evidence that the candidate is a sockpuppet, they are welcome to present that evidence in the form of a sockpuppet investigation. Until then, I support the candidate's request for adminship. — Newslinger talk 00:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
100. Support. Responses to questions seem to address all concerns. Dan Bloch (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
101. Support. An encyclopedia needs many kinds of editors, and I'm grateful that SFR is willing to take on some of the less glamorous but still essential tasks behind the scenes. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 01:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
102. Support seems fine I guess. T. Mammothy (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
103. Support. My thoughts are similar to NYB on the experience, new account concerns, and edit requests. As for namespeace %, I don't think a candidate should be disqualified because they are more active in the talk and user talk namespaces than mainspace; their existing mainspace edits plus the two GA's is enough content work. With regard to the KoA interaction, I think that SFR communicated clearly, but I don't think it was ideal. KoA wasn't really heard; awknowledgement of their concerns would have made it better. It's not near enough to oppose over, however. ScottishFinnishRadish is otherwise a competent editor that communicates well enough and is civil. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 01:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
104. Support whilst starting off know what and how to editing may seem 'sock-ish', answers to this is resonable and there is no cause to suspect otherwise. i can understand that as i was like that too (16 y/o account, but only heavily edited end 2019, 2-3 years now and heavily RFTM-ing). on other concerns, answers seem to address them. – robertsky (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
105. Support good variety of mainspace and project space contributions. It would be hypocritical for me to oppose someone for only having 2 years of tenure when I was promoted after 10 months, and when the vast majority of admins who do a fantastic job were promoted after a shorter period of time too. The only sticking point was the sockpuppetry concerns, but they have been address by the answer to Q6. Gizza (talk • voy) 01:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
106. Support I believe this editor would be a good admin. Some people like the back office work more than the front office, so the low-mainspace thing doesn't worry me. Glennfcowan (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
107. Support. In general the candidate seems to have a good understanding of policy and level of experience, and to my mind Q6 seems like a fair response to potential sock concerns. I don't think it's fair to judge them by the Eostrix situation (I note that in that case, ArbCom identified the problem early and the candidate was banned before the RfA concluded). It also seems they acknowledge and have learned from previous mistakes. More admins are needed and my impression is that on balance they'll be a net positive. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
108. Support This editor is experienced enough that I think they will do well on their adminship. Helloheart (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
109. Support - Two years is more than enough tenure and should only be an influential factor anyway, more importantly is competence demonstrated. Clearly this person is intelligent and aware of Wikipedia PAG. While I was concerned at some issues raised in the opposition, I do feel the editor having disclosed their real name and employer to ArbCom, alongside their public declaration of not having (substantial)editing history under another account assuages my concerns and ought to assuage others also. Some newbies are clueless. Some are not. Some remain clueless forever. Others read up and get competent quickly. In absence of evidence of sock puppetry, I see no further merit in the claim or suspicion there is anything untoward regarding this editor. They have the confidence of several respected administrators and exhibited transparency in their answering of questions. I am impressed by their commitment to abandon their toolset on request by peers and so am happy to offer support. MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
110. Support Has a lot of experience within Wikipedia and have a good reason for adminship. He shows that he doesn't have a previous account despite got competent quickly. Thingofme (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
111. Support Volten001 ^☎ 05:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
112. Support There have been concerns raised but the answers are satisfactory. Two GAs is just enough to satisfy my desire for content creation. Schwede66 05:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
113. Support Sensible editor that I think can help more with the tools, I don't think it's right to put so much weight on account age, people can have been editing for 10 years and be unfit for adminship or 1 year and make a good useful admin. Satisfying answers to concerns people raised as well. TylerBurden (talk) 07:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
114. Support The only oppose rationale that I found concerning was Clayoquot's, but that has been admirably addressed in Q.17. ScottishFinnishRadish seems like a cluey, open-minded editor with a sense of humour. Harold the Sheep (talk) 09:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
115. Support LGTM, Drummingman (talk) 09:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
116. Support Has clue. Is sensible. Acts in best interests of the project. No signs tools would be abused. Net positive. Begoon 11:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
117. Support (moved from Neutral) I have thought about it, and several of the oppose reasons don't convince me anymore: Either SFR is too experienced, and had edited before, or he lacks experience, and needs to apply for admin later – but not both. Given that there has not been any proof at all for sockpupping or suspicious behavior, it seems to me that those are unreasonable fears (maybe because of bad experiences). Their answers likewise convince me that while they have made mistakes before, they are willing to admit them. Content creation also is good, if limited; but I'd rather have "limited good" than "extensive bad" mainspace edits. So, support. –LordPeterII (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

     "Sockpupping" is a great new "wikiverb", and I endorse its upcoming, official adoption. I just wish it didn't sound so much like "puppies" since that may confuse and distress... Begoon 11:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

118. Support - I've been observing this RFA since it began and I'm satisfied with their answers to questions, I'm sure they will make a good admin. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 11:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
119. Support. I see no reason to suspect they wouldn't be a good admin. /Julle (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
120. Support - I have seen ScottishFinnishRadish around. They seem level headed and dedicated to the project. I see no reason for them not to have the additional tools. I do not find the oppose !votes convincing. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 12:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
121. Support Good work on edit requests. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) Please ping me when replying. 13:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
122. Support I've noticed SFR on noticeboards and on some other pages through edits. Seems good and the opposes haven't convinced me of any actual potential problems that would mean opposing this RFA. Skynxnex (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
123. Support. Seem to have clue. At 18 mos/28+k edits, they are experienced enough. With 2 GAs and 5200+ main space edits, they are not content-ignorant and I find the main space percentage irrelevant. They have a generally good interaction style and are nuanced in their reasoning. In terms of opposes: regarding concerns regarding so-called initial editing precocity, I find the narrative that they RTFM plus their answer to Q6 plausible (and feel sad that observing and reading up on policy before leaping in and screwing up is considered "savant-like" and inherently suspicious). Regarding the editing on Ariel Fernandez referred to in KoA's oppose (#9) and Q18, I've drilled down a bit on it and see both SFR's editing and response to KoA's concerns at the time as well within the bounds of reasonable. Finally, the incident referred to by Clayoquot (and Q17) was indeed handled poorly by SFR, but I'm fine assuming he will take more care going forward. Martinp (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
124. Support I am impressed by the answers to questions. --Enos733 (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
125. Support excellent candidate. Doug Weller talk 16:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
126. Support, I don't have really have much else to add that others haven't already said. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
127. Like the answers to questions, like what I've seen of them around; I guess it's possible they're a sock but the opposes are not convincing on that point, and the not-yet opposes seem completely wrongheaded. --JBL (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
128. Support Have noticed them giving many useful replies to edit requests Chidgk1 (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
129. Support (moved from neutral) The edit warring and stonewalling at Ariel Fernandez as mentioned in depth by KoA's oppose gives me pause and leaves me hesitant to want to trust this user with the admin toolset, but SFR has apologised for similar actions in the RfA and seems to know how to deal with this sort of dispute, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. However, it's been drowned out by a whole bunch of evidence-free accusations of sock puppetry. As the policy states clearly, "If you believe someone is using sockpuppets or meat puppets, you should create a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations". It doesn't say "cast aspersions on a public noticeboard". And concerns that improving two articles to GA standard and rescuing a few drafts from the slush pile is "not enough content creation", which flatly contradicts my own essay. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
130. Support I've read about the opposes. I am confident the candidate will continue to learn and not abuse the tools.It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 17:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
131. Support - I've noticed SFR at various places around the project, and have consistently found them to be thoughtful and knowledgeable. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
132. Support, answers to questions (including 6) seem to show SufficientClue(tm). SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
133. Strong Support SFR is probably the best editor on Wikipedia, as far as I'm concerned. As close to neutral, bias-free editing and mediating as one can get, yet smoehow not robotic about it, always maintaining a sense of humor and kindness. I don't know why people think you need 20 years of experience and have written 20 articles on particle physics to prove you're capable of high-level contributions on Wikipedia. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
134. Support A year and a half and nearly 30,000 edits seems like more than enough experience, and as someone who also started editing by doing a (very) deep dive on policies and history, treating this as evidence of socking in the absence of other clues seems ridiculous. Low mainspace percentage seems unobjectionable as long as there is some evidence they can do content work, for which two GAs seem perfectly adequate. I've seen them around and have a generally positive impression. Rusalkii (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
135. Support - Strong understanding of BLP policy is a plus to the admin corp; especially with the understanding that contentious edits to those articles require consensus for inclusion; not status quo. Not concerned about the lower percentage of mainspace edits when they have contributed to several GAs. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
136. Support - SFR has a demonstrated will, and the demonstrated ability, to handle administrative tasks. Nothing I've seen makes me think he is likely to abuse admin rights. Thparkth (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
137. Support - SFR is good, reason minded editor who I am confident will be a good administrator. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 22:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
138. Support I too initially had concerns about socking and do find the question reasonable to ask in an RfA, but I found their explanation as well as the confirmation of the email to ARBCOM to be a reasonable balance of AGF. I found the arguments about low percentage of main space edits to be hogwash. One unintended solution would be for editors to reduce communicating on talk pages in order to artificially increase mainspace percentage. On the other hand, 5,000 edits in mainspace and 2 GAs over 2 year period might not be enough for some here, but it’s enough for me. I think this editor has made mistakes in the past as pointed out and I trust they and the community will give them additional feedback when needed. Their response to many opposed comments and their discussions on talk page of RfA are unusual, but not disqualifying norms for me. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
139. Support - a good candidate. --Bduke (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
140. Support While it would be nice to see a bunch of FA and GA icons on their userpage, SFR has demonstrated sufficient familiarity with content creation to satisfy me. SFR has sufficient clue concerning process and policy to be a good administreator, and enough self-awareness to walk away when that is the correct course. Acroterion (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
141. Support - lots of trust from users I respect. Seren_Dept 02:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
142. Support. Thanks for volunteering. Bridget (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
143. Support Their level of activity in the mainspace is admittedly sub-optimal. But I'm not seeing any real red or yellow flags. They have a clue and a clearly demonstrated commitment to improving the project. My interactions with them have been uniformly positive. Concersn about peevish behavior can be filed under the heading of we have all had bad days. It's clearly not the way they normally conduct themselves. Concerns about their being a little too experienced for a new editor, sans evidence, are neither here nor there. See WP:AGF. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
144. Support Familiar with his work on the noticeboards and no problems there. Good people with strong arguments on both sides. I had been leaning toward neutral, mindful of past debacles in exactly this area such as Archtransit and Law/The undertow. But the answer to Q6 is more than adequate. Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
145. Support This editor has a history of staying calm and making policy-based arguments in contentious areas. Over 5,000 edits to mainspace, including many substantive edits. There is no reason to suspect sockpuppetry without concrete evidence, particularly given the reasonable explanation in Q6. Stedil (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
146. Support ScottishFinnishRadish is a sensible person who can handle the tools. Given the need for more admins, I can't understand why there are so many opposes here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
147. Support I believe there is enough trust available to give this a try. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
148. Support – I have been waiting this one out because I have always been a bit suspicious about SFR's combination of an extremely fast learning curve with a focus on administrative areas of the project. But while I think such suspicion healthy, opposing an RFA purely based on it crosses the line to aspersions and unevidenced accusations, which are in fact uncivil. With this RfA progressing and questions being asked and answered, I have found the oppose !votes to become increasingly irrational. What we have here is an extremely intelligent editor who does not need his full attention while performing his day job and who has decided to make thousands of gnomish edits to Wikipedia during his working hours. After work and during the weekends, he spends his time growing vegetables and tending to his live stock, giving him ample time to relax from any stress caused either by Wikipedia or his job. The result is that on-wiki, he is always extremely chill, not at all hampered by any emotional dependence on the project (a common problem with full-time editors). Highly competent, dedicated, ready to do repetitive but necessary work, and seemingly immune to wiki-stress, SFR is everything we need an admin to be. We'd be foolish not to give him a chance. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
149. Weak support Was expecting to cast an easy strong support as have found SFR to be a friendly, sensible & very likeable chap. But was given pause by some of the opposes, esp SandyGeorgia's & Clayoquot's. Excellent answers to Questions have alleviated that, but only partly re JoJo Anthrax's. I'd not noticed SFR had gone in quite so hard against Sceptics. Even if one sees connection with the spiritual as our deepest need, it's sensible to see sceptical editors as a huge net +ve here. Much of what they see as fringe pushing really is mischief making, ego gratification & even despicable attempts to exploit the credulous - which few others have the motivation to defend us against on needed scale. While parts of skepticism may seem problematic, once should try to keep in mind the real game isnt against flesh & blood, and the Boss always knows how to turn all human efforts to the good. Skeptics IMO warrant being treated with a little extra slack, not just with neutrality, in recognition of how especially stressful their topic class is to work in, and the value of what they do. Would be happy to elaborate on why I think that if requested. Anyway, still coming down on the support side on balance per arguments above, and as Q21 answer does suggest the raddish can collab well with sceptics and at least partly appreciates their value to the project. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
150. Support I have been following this user since their very first edits and have been pondering myself when the right time to offer a nomination would be. I'm going to address the question of socking as well as I was mentioned on a thread on WT:RFA about it but I want to state clearly here that when I first encountered SFR I was concerned they could be a sock. As well as the conversation on SFR's talk page I also did some textural analysis and didn't find any links to any known blocked users. Finally, I also had an off wiki conversation with a member of arbcom about my concerns and was entirely reassured after all of this that my concerns were wholly groundless. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
151. Support, on balance, it seems to me that SFR has the understanding and knowledge to make a good administrator. I'm not concerned about socking after reading several comments. Content creation is not as exemplary as it could be, but it seems they have enough of an understanding to "get it". Good answers to questions and relatively good record suggest they can handle the tools. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
152. Support NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 14:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
153. Support Reading the information available and the comments left by peers, I fully suppor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizgamer (talk • contribs) 14:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
154. Support I have seen ScottishFinnishRadish around quite a lot, and my experience convinces me that they will make a good administrator. I could answer each of the "oppose" reasons, but suffice it to say that to me they range over a spectrum from totally invalid to reasonable concerns but blown grossly out of proportion. We all have our weaknesses, but ScottishFinnishRadish's weaknesses are much less than those of plenty of editors who are doing good work as administrators. JBW (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

     On second thoughts I will comment on just one of the reasons given for opposing. All the stuff about having edited before creating the ScottishFinnishRadish account is just nonsense. I did some IP editing before creating an account. I have never made any secret about that, but nor, as far as I remember did I mention it in my RFA. That wasn't because I wanted to hide it, it was because I didn't think it in any way significant or relevant. If there is any evidence that ScottishFinnishRadish is an illegitimate sockpuppet account then editors should say what that evidence is, but there is no ground for suspicion on the basis of no more than the presumption that so many editors make that anyone who is not a new editor when they create their account must be up to no good. In my opinion the closing bureaucrat should completely disregard such arguments. JBW (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

     +1 = Word to the up to the max. Steel1943 (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

155. Support Thank you for volunteering. If this doesn't succeed (it's pretty close right now), I do hope that you continue editing and consider running again in future. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
156. Fast learner, wants to help, has clue, why not? The opposes stating these are negative qualities are hilarious. The answer to Q6 explains the rest. Steel1943 (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
157. Support, having seen them around they have a good understanding of policies, a lot of patience and their answers are more than satisfactory imo. I should add that they are one of the few people who address edit requests and actually take a proper look at the concerned subject matter to be able to respond to further queries. They will make a good administrator and we certainly need more of them at this time. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
158. Support, adding my opinion on one of the concerns expressed by some editors that they are not primarily a content creator, and that content creation is what the encyclopedia is about. The English Wikipedia community should now give at least as high a priority to content maintenance and content improvement as to content creation. Much of the work of deciding what are content improvements should be done on talk pages (because no one, even "excellent content creators", owns an article). This editor has shown that they know how to deal with the conflicts that interfere with content maintenance and content improvement. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
159. Support - Best of luck to you! A prolific and heartfelt editor. And what's more, Wikipedia NEEDS new admins, and I think we've found a great one here. BiscuitsToTheRescue (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
160. Support, with the greatest of respect to the opposes, which I have read in detail. Any time I have seen them they have been making good edits and I am sure they would be fine as admin. John (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
161. This is in the Support section because I think it's worth giving the radish a shot based on the merits. My main concern is that the candidate has obviously lost the trust of several respected contributors to the project, and in different ways. Should the community come to consensus to support giving the radish the tools, I hope the candidate will take the addressable concerns in the Oppose section as useful direction for personal development, and attempt to mend broken relationships with the editors who have raised valid issues. In other words, congratulations on reading the manual, now read the room. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
162. Support An excellent candidate in all respects. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
163. Support A good editor who can help the wiki with the additional tools. Terasail^[✉️] 21:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
164. Support - per the amount of edits made reporting various problematic users/IP addresses [11] and to replace those who have lost their status for sad reasons. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I have a few concerns: (1) The candidate is a very new editor, with less than 2 years here; (2) The candidate's edits are overwhelmingly at talk pages rather than at main, with <20% on main; (3) Of the main space edits, the editor started out principally by undoing edits...a very strange pattern for an obstensively novice editor... and even now roughly 10% of their main space edits are simply reverting others' edits. I'd want to see a year or two more experience, and more focus on adding content before a yes vote. Banks Irk (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

   Wikipedia has reached a point where undoing unhelpful contributions is an easier way to start meaningfully participating than creating or noticeably expanding a new article about a notable subject. The talk page edits are from reviewing edit requests for articles, a task way too few people perform in an encyclopedia that requires people to submit such requests when attempting to edit protected pages, and that encourages editors with a conflict of interest to do so even in the absence of protection. ScottishFinnishRadish's work for the encyclopedia is neither suspicious, as you seem to imply, nor does it need any change, as your request for "more focus" seems to say. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

   This is a bit of a tangent but depending on what your interests are this can vary highly, areas such as metalworking and other industrial processes and motorsport related articles dearly need editors, but generally speaking yes, it is hard to find a niche. Just my two cents X-750 _{List of articles that I have screwed over} 04:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

   More focus on content after two GAs and thousands of edit requests? Also, plenty of editors can pass RFA with less than two years of experience. I mean, lots of people learn faster than a stumbling oaf like myself, but there are great numbers of admins who have done well with the mop after just one our two years of tenure. Sure, my criteria says that I prefer editors with more than three years experience, but that is just a preference, not a requirement. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

2. Strong oppose. Creating their account on 22 January 2021, this editor has been editing only a bit over a year-and-a-half. When they started editing on 11 February, one of their first edits was to blank the welcome template—an odd way to start editing. My concerns are in line with those raised early on at the editor's talk page: "You must be the most precocious editor we have ever had". This editor had a very unusual start, highly suggestive of a returning editor, and set about from the outset appearing to be checking all the right boxes towards RFA, which is where it always appeared they were aiming. Content creation was never primary for this editor, who nonetheless indicated considerable knowledge of Wiki-processes. An 800-word and an 1,110 word GA—passed by editors I'm unfamiliar with—do not convince me, and in fact, look like another box to be ticked on the much-too-quick route to RFA. I can't recall recently seeing an editor with only 18% of their edits in mainspace. I'm additionally concerned that neither the nominators nor the RFA candidate addressed this editor's odd history in their nomination statements. Considering this editor's early history, there is nothing that can be said to convince me that it is not much too soon to trust this "new" editor with the tools. This is my strongest possible oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

   Wikipedia:Newbies aren't always clueless; some editors learn very quickly. BilledMammal (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

   Of course, particularly when they are motivated to improve content, or create bots, or scripts, or propose new and better processes or policies. But this editor did not appear to aim for or excel at any of that. Unlike the example of editors who have few edits in mainspace because they excel in technical areas and write scripts or bots rather than mainspace content, this editor came right out of the starting gate with a specialty that appeared to be to tick off the boxes to RFA at a steady pace. Of course one can learn quickly, particularly if they've been observing Wikipedia for a long time. But typical new editors have an interest in more than adminship, or what years ago we referred to as "climbing the pole to RFA"-- the kind of editor I trust the least. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

   Typos fixed, [12] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

   The answer to question 6 (with 10 and 14) leaves me more concerned.

   With respect to the concerns raised by Koa about this thread, that even after discussing them, neither the candidate nor the nominators thought the past acknowledged concerns worthy of bringing up in the candidate statement demonstrates the very attitude characterized by Koa as "too much of a just barrel ahead attitude". The "barrel ahead" attitude is reinforced by putting up an RFA at a time when apparently it would be hard to answer questions (many editors time their RFAs around knowing they will need to be very much available for a week to answer questions, and yet with still questions 7, 8 9, 11, 12 and 13 unanswered, the candidate is engaging elsewhere). If indeed these issues were acknowledged and foreseen backchannel, they might have been better addressed before launching an RFA.

   Add to this not reverting supports entered before the RFA was launched reinforces the "barrel ahead" concern.

   Regarding concerns raised by several about previous editing history, revealing a current name and email address to the arbs has no relationship to whether the editor previously edited under any other account or other name, which is something that can't necessarily be determined by revealing a current name, so that is little more than a strawman. But it does lead to other questions about how this editor approaches the project.

   Given that all apparently acknolwedged the concerns going in, it's perhaps telling that the candidate decided not to share relevant information about their editing experience on their userpage, rather instead chose to write to the arbs. This ties in to ...

   Clayoquot's oppose about this thread and how the nominator might view the "regular" editor (that is, not a fellow admin, and not an arb). The concerns some others have raised here about "cabalism" are made more understandable, but might be characterized instead as "elitism", which is just what we don't want in admins (someone who approaches disputes as if the arbs or other admins or backchanneling is more important than presenting yourself to the entire community which includes everyone on an equal standing). Information which they must have known would come up during an RFA was shared backchannel with a select few instead. I don't want to see an editor with this kind of approach having power to influence the edits of those in the trenches building content. The answer leaves me more concerned than before. An editor who acknowledges experience with other Wikis evidences interesting priorities. As I indicated below, this is not a "length of tenure" oppose; it is how one spent that time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

   SandyGeorgia, respectfully, it's been a day since the RFA started. While the expectation is that editors are available throughout the week to answer questions, expecting the candidate to answer all outstanding questions every 2-3 hours for the 168 allocated seems excessive to me. I'm sure SFR will answer our questions soon enough. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 17:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

   ScottishFinnishRadish I sincerely appreciate your rapid response to questions from the person who is unlikely to ever be one of your favorite editors. Your answer to Q28 is fine, understandable, and reassuring.

   With Q27, I came up with the one question whose answer could provide the potential for me strike my oppose, but although you didn't glaringly blow it, we didn't quite make it. Re Seeing that gives a fair view into the disciplinary system of Wikipedia, and would hopefully demonstrate how I was familiar with some of that when I began; you were familiar perhaps with how it ended, but not how it began, and it was anything but a fair situation. And unfortunately re Some people are just going to be themselves, what Eric became was not who Mally is or was. It was and remains the classic example of the levels to which abusive admins can impact valuable content contributors and drive them to desperation to the point that even those who knew them well could no longer reach them. For background, Mally was (to the best of my knowledge with is pretty complete) universally respected and admired by all the women in the FA process then (and there was quite a number of us), and viewed by none of us as a misogynist. We watched as he was basically driven to Wikisuicide by the abuse, to the point that even with established rapport, a kind well placed word could no longer have an impact. Admin abuse drove the situation early on, and remains why I can never support for adminship someone whose character I don't know very well, and why I have such a concern about motivating factors in RFA. I was hoping that if you had an inkling of the deeper background, and indicated an understanding of why adminship absolutely is a very big deal, you might have answered in a way that I could consider relaxing my stance. Best of luck to you going forward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

3. I don't endorse the sock accusations above, but having only 18.5% of edits to mainspace is shocking and indicates a worrying lack of experience in actually editing the encyclopedia. I'm someone who spends far too much time outside of mainspace, and I still manage to have twice that. I'm aware that the candidate spends a lot of time answering edit requests - however I don't think that's the sort of maintenance work that prepares one for adminship, and I'm concerned that a lot of their responses involve slapping newbies with a canned template telling them to "get consensus", which is just going to be confusing and meaningless to most inexperienced editors [13][14]. Frankly, most of the times I've seen this user around they've been involving themselves in drama at some noticeboard or other, which doesn't give the best impression. Spicy (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

   Per Edit Summary Search [[15]], the candidate Templated edit requests as denied, almost always without further explanation, well over 600 times in the past two months alone. Banks Irk (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

4. Strong oppose. The editor is very new and needs sufficient experience. To gain these features and responsibility you must be reliable enough and able to resolve disputes smoothly. I do not see that this currently applies to the candidate.--Sakiv (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
5. Oppose, largely per Sandy and Spicy. Way too much time on the noticeboards, and minimal content editing. My time as an editor has personally convinced me that those who spend the most time on noticeboards and the least time on consistently building article content (no, 2 short GAs isn't particularly impressive and shooting back at new editor requests mainly with canned templates doesn't help, either) don't make good administrators. Hog Farm _Talk 00:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
6. Oppose per SandyGeorgia. I've reviewed a number of the candidate's early edits, and it's pretty clear this isn't their first account. I would like to see ScottishFinnishRadish be more forthcoming about their past editing history. -FASTILY 01:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
7. Oppose - Way too few edits in mainspace, only 18.5% of their contributions. Much too much time on Talk (48.7%), User talk (19.95%), and Wikipedia (8.8%) - a combined 77%. Admins should understand the needs and requirements of Wikipedia's content editors, and I don't believe SFR's experience lends itself to that. WP:Communication is required, but it's not the purpose of Wikipedia, creating and editing content is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
8. Oppose – I don't vote at RfA as a rule but I think some very valid concerns have been raised here, namely the strange namespace makeup of the candidate's edits, that they seem to be flatly rejecting quite a lot of edit requests (which is the bulk of their activity), and seem unusually policy-aware on their first day of editing. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
9. Strong Oppose. Personally, I've seen too much of a "just barrel ahead attitude" on enough occasions that I don't think they would be suitable as an admin at all. I do recall warnings myself and another editor gave them on their talk page earlier this year and just saw talking past attitude in response. Too trigger-happy to edit war and too much WP:NOTTHEM attitude when their behavior was at issue. Others above already summarize many of my other concerns already when seeing this name here. The combination of too new, too much time on noticeboards, and too few mainspace edits is a huge red flag. KoA (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

   oh wow. I really encourage people to read this section KoA is talking about. The alleged edit warring is one thing, but the open wikilawyering and evasiveness in response to Koa and @Roxy the dog isn't what we want from an admin in my opinion. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

   SFR's behavior seems reasonable there, and he communicated clearly and without evasion. Accusing a scientist of "problems with the reported data" in his papers is a strong claim to make and I understand SFR's viewpoint that it falls under BLPREMOVE. Furthermore, the BLPN consensus was already clear by 17:33 on 9 September, when the discussion on his talk page was restarted. Enterprisey (talk!) 19:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

   I do think we need to be careful about mischaracterizing SFN's behavior like that. They were evading warnings in classic WP:NOTTHEM fashion to justify continued edit warring. Regardless of the eventual outcome of later consensus, jumping into edit warring before consensus and immediately after page protection is a major behavior issue. If they had not responded how they did, I for sure would not be as strongly opposed as I am now, but instead they showed basically non-answer responses to issues with their behavior. That's a non-starter for an admin candidate and shouldn't be superficially glossed over by the other concerns of tenure, etc. in how opposition is being characterized currently. The maturity to act as an admin is what has serious red flags here in my oppose !vote here. Admins should not antagonize situations like SFR did there. I do have to question what SFR needs the tools for if they act like that. KoA (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

   So it's unacceptable to disagree with someone else's interpretation of one's own behavior? —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 21:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

   When someone is clearly being disruptive and instead double down after warnings by uninvolved editors or feel emboldened to continue the behavior, it's still disruptive no matter how you split it. At the end of the day, lack of accountability when confronted with disruptive editing is an issue for any regular editor, but doubly so when it comes to being an admin. If they can't reflect on their actions in content disputes, that does not bode well for admin actions. KoA (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

   When someone is clearly being disruptive...: I guess part of how I see it is that you thought that the editing was disruptive due to the repeated reverts (possibly; edit warring appears to be something you care a lot about), but SFR thought that it was permissible due to the exemption (possibly). Even though the policy does say 'what counts is contentious', I think that in the discussion SFR adequately supported why he was 'safe' claiming it (emerging consensus, discussion ongoing at noticeboard). My point is that I think the problem in that discussion was more 'you two have different opinions re 3RRNO#7' and less 'SFR responds badly to warnings'. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 00:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

   Yeah no, they jumped into resuming an edit war immediately after page protection ended, full stop. Even less-than experienced editors know better than to do something like that. Special pleading that it somehow wasn't disruptive isn't appropriate. You can still claim BLP and be disruptive, and that especially applied to where a BLP exemption wouldn't be valid within their blanket reverts. It was partly the multiple layers in their behavior that led to me giving them a warning. KoA (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

   Having reviewed this in some detail, it seems to me SFR was behaving within the bounds of acceptability; I would tend to agree with Danre98's characterization. With the benefit of hindsight, it seems to me both you, KoA, and SFR could have been more prepared to accept that this was a situation where balance needs to be found between different principles. Instead, both of you were a bit on your high horse, unprepared to acknowledge the other had a point. I acknowledge this may well not encourage you to want to trust SFR with the admin bit, but it does strike me as a rather modest tempest in a teacup: two users having a difference of opinion about appropriate behaviour, discussing it politely on the basis of policy, not reaching a conclusion and moving on when the situation became moot. Martinp (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

   Disruptive editing in the form of edit warring like that, much less the tendentious behavior later, is not within any policy-based acceptability, that's instead WP:WIKILAWYERING at best as many others here have described. Of course we wouldn't need admins if every editor out there actually admited disruptive behavior is such and righted course when merely warned. Admin tools are moreso given to those protecting the encyclopedia from that kind of behavior, not those who engage in inflaming disruption. That's in part because admins, before using the tools, need experience in engaging others in self-reflection and walking others off the precipice as someone uninvolved first. I was stern as someone uninvolved because their behavior warranted it, but still less stern than an admin would be, so no matter the excuse for their actions, they still demonstrated qualities the exact opposite of what an admin is expected to do in their tasks. KoA (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

   In fairness to KoA, SFR made 5 reverts to the page whereas KoA made 0. I think it's a false equivalence to say that both of them were acting disproportionately to the same degree. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

10. Oppose. Too new to the project. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
11. Oppose Sorry but there seems to be several red flags here. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 03:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
12. Strong oppose. I was just going to say it's too soon, in general, and raises questions about how a new editor can have most of their edits on talk pages and pick up enough to be trusted with the tools. But having read the comments above, as well as the observations by SandyGeorgia, I am concerned that this user has edited under another account. I think we would be foolish to believe anyone would gain enough knowledge and experience to be an admin, by just spending the majority of their time on talk pages. No ... not enough experience ... and the above-raised questions about a previous account cause too much doubt. — Maile (talk) 04:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
13. Oppose Demonstrably unsuited for admin work, perfectly welcome as a fine and sometimes humorous contributor elsewhere. I hope we can revisit sooner than later, as the resolve is very obviously present. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    Realizing I ought clarify my concerns: The editor seems to tread into WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK territory on occasion and a significant number of SFR's edits are personal, non-substantive interactions with some of those in the supporting section. This would not be such an issue of the editor was as committed to other front-facing sections of the project (see Joe's comment below). The Wiki needs fewer admins like SFR; we need editors like SFR. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    Oppose - A few months ago this treatment of a new editor, and subsequent failure to acknowledge having screwed up, was shocking. It does make me wonder why someone would choose to respond to edit requests but not bother to read them. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    To further explain what I see as the problem in this incident: The new editor, Jollybeanz, had submitted a three-paragraph edit request that included a specific sentence to add to a specific location with a specific reference. SFR responded with {{subst:Ep|xy}} which asserted, incorrectly, that Jollybeanz had failed to include these three pieces of information.

    Think about how this would feel if you were Jollybeanz. You see a problem on WIkipedia, you follow the process to suggest how to make it better, you put together the best argument you can for it, and all you get for your effort is someone telling you that you didn't include information that you did include.

    I get it that people who respond to edit requests occasionally make mistakes. I get that this is one incident of using the wrong template when responding to one edit request. I am not opposing because of one mistake.

    I'm opposing because of what happened next. I called SFR out on the nonsensical handling of the edit request and his response was Likely because the requested was 600 words long, with a 22 word sentence tucked in there. What gets me is that this was the entirety of his response: putting the blame on someone else with no sign of empathy for the person he'd bitten and no indication that he might do anything different next time. Empathy and willingness to admit mistakes are crucial for good adminship; unfortunately what I saw here was the opposite of both. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    The text produced by {{subst:Ep|xy}} does say it's not clear what changes you want to be made, which is a fair description of that edit request. While you could characterise it as blunt, because SFR didn't elaborate on it with their own words, I don't share your concerns that it was particularly bitey. SFRs response to you was also succinct, and even with the benefit of reading the request after both your comments here and in the archive, it is very difficult to see what exactly it was that Jollybeanz was requesting to be changed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

    I've struck my Oppose after reading SFR's answers to questions 15 and 17. Simply, the candidate's acknowledgement of the problem and his apology are good and sufficient. I'd like to suggest using templates to save typing only when the template says something you would say if you were speaking to a person in front of you. If some process says to use a template that doesn't say the right thing, just IAR and say the right thing. Thanks for running! Best, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

14. Oppose Lack of engagement with content creation - the actual product of this project - demonstrated by a low proportion of edits to main space and creation of only one article. Their first 24hrs of edits are very fishy. The account immediately set about dealing with vandalism using WP acronyms/lingo in edit summaries ("ce", "go to talk first", "rv", "blanking welcome template", "rm vandalism", "rm or") talks about things A lot of people do [16], uses templates and even welcomes new editors and nominates articles for speedy deletions. The sheer rate and volume of initial edits (something like 100 to 50 different pages in the first 24hrs many only minutes apart) make it a practical impossibility that they could have been reading up on policies and guidelines as they went. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Update: While I still struggle with it, I'll AGF on the answer provided regarding the savant-like initial editing. (I too professionally deal with and write SOPs - apparently a non-transferable skill for me.) However, discussions below and above have only firmed my confidence in an oppose vote. Vladimir.copic (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

    No comment on the rest, but creation of only one article seems only technically correct (the best kind of correct). Jesse Lawson was a longstanding redirect with no other edits until the nominated radish turned it into an article, which is an article creation that doesn't show up under the basic click-me tool. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 05:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    The same applies for many editors. For every 1 technical creation, there are 5 stubs or redirects that have been fleshed into real articles. Are you suggesting this editor does this to redirects or stubs at a higher rate than others? Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    I am saying that the radish has created more than one article. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

15. Oppose The observations made by SandyGeorgia about the candidate's early edit history are quite on point and are substantiated down below by Hammersoft. I'm surprised that the candidate and their nominators did not consider it necessary to offer a convincing explanation. Their content creations are acceptable but do not make a dent for me. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    It seems I have !voted early, so I'd like to elaborate on my reasons for opposing. While the concerns about the candidate's early editing history can be put to one side on AGF grounds, I am somewhat more concerned by how they have spent their short (but certainly not too short) tenure here. Participating in the institutional areas of Wikipedia should never be an end in itself and I cannot but feel that the candidate's involvement in them has come at the expense of sustained mainspace work. In other words, I concur with the views expressed after I !voted by Kudpung, JoJo Anthrax and others. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

16. Reluctant oppose; i'm not convinced by all the talk of knowing too much when starting ~ do we have to assume that new editors are idiots who can't have a look around, read instructions, practise, &c.? ~ but i am very concerned by Clayoquot's illustration of the candidate not responding appropriately to an edit request and then not admitting the error and maybe even apologising for it. I expect admins to be able to do these things (especially the latter two) automatically. Maybe i ought to ask a question about that to offer a chance of correction or clarification; till then, though, i have to be here. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 09:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
17. Oppose What I have seen from him, does not gives me positive vibes. Contrary. No confidence in him. The Banner talk 09:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
18. Oppose I usually steer well clear of RfAs, but felt compelled to cast my !vote at this one. I have an uncomfortable feeling (and no, I won't unpack that) about the possibility of this user becoming an admin. Among my reasons are that they're too new (barely 18 months), with only one article creation under their belt. I get that we desperately need more admins, but I want admins to have considerably more experience, not just mastery of the rulebook (important as that is). Sorry, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
19. Oppose per socking concerns raised by eminent colleagues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serial Number 54129 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    @Serial Number 54129: looks like your signature was messed up here. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

20. Oppose I am going to have oppose off the concerns and red flags this editor has and good points from SandyGeorgia. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 12:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
21. Per SandyGeorgia, Hog Farm, and others who shares general bad vibes about this editor. It's really hard to believe this is his first account but, even extending the benefit of the doubt there, the way SFR has inserted himself into nearly every drama and expressed Strong Opinions on nearly every single policy discussion in his very short time here so far makes me seriously doubt he'd be an admin who put the interests of the encyclopaedia first. If reading policy pages and hanging around backstage boards is really what floats his boat, more power to him, but it should take more than making friends in the cabal to pass RfA. – Joe (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    @Joe I don't understand what making friends in the cabal means. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    I believe that that insult was directed at me. It's disappointing that a former arbitrator treats RfA as a free-for-all. But oh well, I learned something from my first RfA nomination ever. El_C 14:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    No? I'm not sure why you would think that. Nor why you would describe what I said as an "insult" towards anyone at all. I was trying to make a pithy reference to Tomorrow and tomorrow's observation below: that being very active in certain places (dramaboards, WP:BADSITES, etc.) might make you popular, which might translate to a lot of less-than-substantive support !votes at RfA, but it's not actually a sign that someone would be a good admin. That doesn't mean that making friends is a bad thing, just that it's not enough. – Joe (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    Sorry, are you asking me? Why would I think that? Maybe because I'm the co nominator and my opening sentence reads: I am pleased to co-nominate SFR, a friendly guy whom I also consider to be a friend. El_C 14:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    I don't believe Joe Roe's words should be taken so literally. I personally consider any reference to a "cabal" as implying a half-joking or lighthearted mood. Though that may be considered irritating in an honest "oppose" vote, I don't think it should be understood as an intended insult. And he has clarified that making friends is not a bad thing. Maybe the vote was worded in an unfortunate way, but I don't think it was meant to criticise you or anyone in particular, @El_C. –LordPeterII (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    I am sure that absolutely no insult was intended, but I have learned from experience that references to a "cabal" on Wikipedia tend to be misunderstood, and that hence, except in purely humorous contexts, it is better that the word not be used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    Well, for the avoidance of doubt, it was in no way intended to refer to you El C. I'm sure that neither you or Vanamonde would nominate someone for RfA if you weren't convinced they'd be a good admin. – Joe (talk) 07:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

22. oppose, with an invitation to return for another try. I don't think a lack of article edits or a high level of policy knowledge is inherently bad, since we do not track what editors read. What's been offered as evidence shows that this editor's knowledge is used in an imperious manner; we don't need administrators discouraging editors in that way. Let's see if a year or two can mellow this editor's tone. If that occurs, I will eagerly support.~TPW 14:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
23. Oppose, it's almost a shame to find myself down here. However, for someone who at first blush appears to be squeaky clean, they don’t actually check all the boxes on my ‘laundry list’ which while long, is one of the easiest sets of user criteria for a pass. I’ve often said: ‘users who join Wikipedia with the intention of becoming an admin some day have joined for the wrong reasons’ ; that, together with a major focus on maintenance areas and such a consistent high AfD score reinforces that opinion. The further I dig, time and time again I find myself concurring with @Hog Farm, Fastily, SandyGeorgia, and Joe Roe:. The Radish has done the governance stuff, if they would spend the next 12 months making the segments of the coloured edit count clock spin the other way, it would be a 'yes' from me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
24. Oppose Insufficient time as an editor, and insufficient mainspace edits. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
25. Oppose this feels too much like hat collecting. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    I find this quite unconvincing, and a line of argumentation that may discourage people to step forward to run. This is a candidate who needed convincing to run, and who has not taken one of the easy routes to RfA (which I believe are content writing, script writing or NPP work), but has had a rather obscure backlog of answering edit requests as a main area. Isn't hat avoiding a much bigger problem? Femke (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    Perhaps I should have been more clear, but there seems little point in thoroughly reiterating comments already made above. Since clarification is apparently needed, I agree with other !voters that this candidate's timeline indicates that they had adminship in view from a very early stage. You are welcome to disagree. Heck, I might even be wrong. But this is where I am landing. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    What's wrong with having adminship in view from a very early stage? Levivich^😃 00:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

    I'm speaking from the bias of personal experience here, but I remember a time when I wanted very much to be an admin. I would have made a dreadful admin in those days. Today I'd be a slightly less dreadful admin, so maybe I'm not the best example. But I don't think that adminship is really something to be sought after. As I said above, I could be wrong about this editor. And, as it currently stands, they will pass despite my opposition. Hopefully they will take the concerns voiced in this section on board. At any rate, I've said my piece. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

    Hat-collectors are typically over-eager for permissions. SFR was not; it took considerable persuasion on my part to bring him here. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    @Femke and Vanamonde93: I think you'll find that Lepricavark has done nothing other than bluntly express concerns that other opposers have been alluding to in a more guarded manner. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    This would be their first hat. Not much of a collection. Levivich^😃 17:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

    Indeed. Begoon 11:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

26. Oppose. Their start on Wikipedia looks suspicious, but it's really the other raised concerns like the edit request incident mentioned by Clayoquot (which happened less than five months ago) that bring me to this section. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
27. Weak oppose. Eh, I'm just not feeling it. SFR is a nice, cordial guy, but his mainspace edits are so low it's almost funny, especially given that a lot of it is probably just responding to edit requests/reverting. The climate change thread linked by Clayoquot suggests to me SFR suffers from WP:ITIS and wants to do as many tasks as possible. Was SFR in a rush to respond to as many edit requests as he could? Why else would he clearly just glance at a request and decline it? IMO, it was hardly long enough to be considered an impenetrable wall of text. And that was only a few months ago. Good editor, but I'd prefer a second RFA a few years from now (which would allow time to account for any shifting interests, etc. - 17 months really isn't any time at all on Wikipedia, in my experience) Nohomersryan (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
28. Oppose per Sandy. Too inexperienced for me. Come back in 12-18 months and I'll happily support. GiantSnowman 19:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
29. Regretfully oppose for now, but please do not be downhearted by this, ScottishFinnishRadish. I believe it may be best to return in a year or so after you have gained some more experience. Patient Zero^talk 21:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
30. Oppose due to relative lack of editing experience and participation as expressed by others. Gamaliel (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
31. Oppose Lack of experience. Try again in a few years time. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC).
32. Oppose per Sandy. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
33. Oppose per SandyGeorgia among others.--Catlemur (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
34. Oppose for 3 reasons: a) wikilaywering + evasiveness when accused of doing soemthing wrong (see KoA's !vote) also argumentativeness and sharpness with new editors (see Clayoquot's !vote) b) mostly talk page activity (which would be fine except for reason a) meaning that I'm not convinced SFR's talk page activity is super constructive) , which isn't super constructive and c) a lot of support coming from 'friends' for the reason of being 'friends'- this isn't inherently SFR's fault but answer to Q13 (recall if agreed by editors SFR respects) just gives me bad vibes about accountability and respect to community/editors they don't know Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
35. Oppose for reasons given by Fastily, KOA and Clayoquot. Too low a content creation to be an editor, and unusual familarity with Wikipedia on first editing. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
36. Oppose per SandyGeorgia and others above. There seems to be something fishy about this editor, and I would gladly support them if it wasn't for all the sock accusations above (which is quite concerning, to say the least). CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
37. Oppose After reading the arguments above in my opinion this candidacy has too many red flags and it is too soon. Alan Islas (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
38. I would weakly oppose, and suggest this candidate makes more content contributions prior to their next RFA.—S Marshall T/C 07:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
39. Oppose I'm grateful that SFR handles so many edit requests but an admin needs more clue than exhibited before and during the Skepticism (GSOW) arb case. There was a huge WP:COIN pile-on regarding the obvious conflict-of interest reported in the case (out of proportion to the resulting very mild Findings of fact). I attempted to determine if there was any evidence of bad content (article content that was wrong or that involved POV pushing). SFR posted a wall of unhelpful links in response (search for "I'm not sure how many diffs you wanted" in this subsection). That whole section shows an inability to distinguish between bad edits and edits that are sourced and factually correct but which, in some cases, over-egg the pudding and involve a COI. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
40. Oppose per SandyGeorgia. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
41. Oppose. I would like to see more experience from prospective admins, particularly in the content creation sphere. I also share the concerns of many editors above. I'd like to see a new RfA from SFR after more time has passed. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
42. Oppose. Lack of experience in article space. WWGB (talk) 12:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
43. Oppose per SandyGeorgia and as CycloneYoris said. Kante4 (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
44. Oppose I regret landing here, as I believe SFR to be a friendly person with a fine sense of humor, the kind of person with whom to share a couple (or more) beers. That said...I share the concern expressed by many others here about SFR's relative lack of activity in content expansion/creation. It seems to me vaguely suspicious that someone would participate on Wikipedia to such a great extent (approximately 1500 edits per month) to primarily engage in the project's political esoterica, as opposed to actually creating encyclopedic content. Of greater concern to me, however, is SFR's behavior in the broad area of fringe/skepticism. A basic, but telling, example includes this, which to me is a gratuitous aspersion cast by SFR against an "anti-fringe" (i.e., pro-science) editor because that editor was, well, anti-fringe. Sure, everyone has a bad day now and then, but particularly enlightening to me are SFR's many contributions to the Skepticism arb case earlier this year. In that case SFR expended a great deal of effort promoting what I perceived as punitive sanctions, as opposed to reasonable preventative remedies, against several editors (see also this and this). All of those editors shared the common trait of adding reliably sourced, pro-science material to the encyclopedia, and it seemed to me that SFR wanted several pounds of their flesh. SFR did not agree with the case closure, and seemed, from my reading, to be particularly dissatisfied that the case was concluded with few punitive sanctions against the targeted editors (see this). The latter indicates to me a pro-punishment approach to enWiki policy enforcement that resides well outside the norm, and is inappropriate for an administrator. Reviewing that case now, I believe if SFR had been an administrator at that time they would have reflexively, and improperly in my opinion, banned or blocked several valuable editors before a case was ever requested, and the project would have been much weaker for it. It is of course often impossible to predict the future, but I fear that if SFR becomes an administrator the encyclopedia will be harmed by a subsequent, perhaps inevitable loss of good, productive, pro-science editors due to inappropriate, SFR-imposed blocks and bans. If this RfA succeeds, as seems likely at this point, I very much hope that fear will be proven wrong. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

    If the RfA does succeed, it does sound like based on your description that they would be WP:INVOLVED in fringe subjects and shouldn't be acting in that area at least. That's only if things were done by the book though, which I am concerned about. I wasn't aware how much more they doubled down after my earlier warning to them, so this addition really helps add to the picture. KoA (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

45. Oppose -- With an account under two years old, I need to be wowed by their abilities. I simply do not get this impression. -- Dolotta (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
46. Oppose You have shown great work in your edits and anti-vandalism work on Wikipedia, However your account is simply too young. I do hope to see you continue your work on wikipedia, and hope you continue to improve. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 19:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
47. Oppose Per SandyGeorgia and others. I'd rather err on the side of caution.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
48. Strong oppose: Many reasons, including: has said nothing about any previous account(s) despite questions about that having been repeatedly and reasonably raised; promoting fringe subjects and attacking more skeptical editors; "wikilawyering and evasiveness" as cited by Tomorrow and tomorrow; significant voids in what Kudpung terms his laundry list; discouraging new editors as cited by TPW (True Pagan Warrior); Sandy Georgia's extremely well organized analysis as cited by other experienced editors here; and more. – Athaenara ✉ 02:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
49. Oppose per JoJo Anthrax and others. – Hippopotenuse72 ✉ 04:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
50. Oppose: with certain exceptions, it is almost entirely useless to revert-war with an LTA, as the candidate did with this LTA sock – it is, I think, generally better to wait for the block before mass-reverting unless there are good reasons for doing otherwise. One of my expectations from candidates is that they should know this rather basic point in anti-abuse measures; and as such I cannot help opposing this candidacy, especially in light of the candidate's relatively poor statistics in mainspace among other concerns brought up above. I'm not really concerned about the socking accusations: I trust the candidate to have been frank with ArbCom in his disclosure. The other points (along with revert warring with an LTA) are more troubling for me. JavaHurricane 06:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

    It is not always easy to detect an LTA in the heat of the disruption, and often it becomes clear only when a checkuser gets involved. I have been an administrator for five years and have frequently warned or short term blocked disruptive editors only to have another administrator identify the account or IP as an LTA. I do not think that it is fair to expect candidates for administratorship to have ESP. Obvious damage to the encyclopedia should be reverted. Cullen328 (talk) 07:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

51. Oppose - per SandyGeorgia, Lepricavark &c - too many issues. Ingratis (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
52. Oppose. There's not much more that I can say without repeating others' points (little focus at main space, quality content, suspicious behaviors, etc.) To the candidate, I think you should take your time and address these concerns. It's a tad too soon. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

    Just to clarify, I don't think that SRF socks, have trust issues, or isn't being competent at the admin job. My oppose here is because I think SRF haven't exactly understand and clarify how they would use the admin tools. I honestly suggest that SRF should take a few months really thinking about this question: Will I use the admin tool to make the encyclopedia better, and how? Would I focus on helping newcomers, or weeding out bad actors, mediating disputes, or helping others building content? If this RfA fails, I do think that the candidate would have a much better chance at the next RfA if they think through these questions and properly address concerns raised by Sandy. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

53. Oppose I've never seen an editor join and contribute with such clear intent of becoming a technocrat. My preference would be that someone joins the admin ranks after substantially helping build the encyclopedia first. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 08:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
54. Oppose - in the lengthy Arb case that I was tangentially involved in, I found SFR's interpretation of concepts, especially COI, was confusingly inconsistent. He seemed to learn and improve as the process went on, but I think it's a sign that it is still a bit early to have Admin tools.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
55. Oppose, at risk of verifying the reputation of RFA as "requests for sainthood." I'm not sold on the hat collecting accusation - SFR was encouraged to run - but there simply aren't enough substantive mainspace edits. Of the mainspace work, most of it is things like reverts to vandalism or responding to edit requests (which is good and useful, and SFR deserves credit for doing this, but it doesn't exactly "count" for content work). A check of SFR's last 500 article space edits shows that 298 of them have been reverts, and 63 have been responding to edit requests. Of the remaining ~140 edits, many of them have been "cleanup" and "rm unsourced" or non-notable. Some of SFR's judgment has been questionable in these edits as well (for all that this would not be serious normally, everyone has differences with an editor, but it's more pressing when the record is thin). Despite the fact that admins do trawl around the noticeboards and policy discussions, the best admins also have a strong background in something else. SFR's actual content creation work is simply too thin currently. (Usual "we appreciate your service and are happy you've volunteered", but not every volunteer needs admin powers.) SnowFire (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
56. Oppose. From my own incidental observations, he seems competent. But there's something fishy about his history. I'm not the first to note this, and I haven't seen him address the issue. Maproom (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

    @Maproom: How would you suggest a candidate address the issue of "there's something fishy about his history" beyond what is in the answers to Q6, Q14, Q25, Q27, and the 24 other questions above? Same question to @Athaenara, who said above SFR "has said nothing about any previous account". Levivich (talkQ6 has ) 22:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

    I'd read the Q6 answers. I've read or reread the others now. Q6 answer has "probably a few dozen edits before I created my account" − still looks fishy. Maproom (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

57. Oppose - Largely along the lines of Hog Farm and Joe's rationales. GAB^gab 00:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

1. While I don't participate in these RfA's anymore, I encourage enthusiastic support for this candidate. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

   Congratulations on your non-participation. I think... Begoon 11:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

   Hahahaha... reminds me of Obama's endorsement for Biden during the run-up to the 2020 election. Essentially a non-supportive support. Great stuff. The comment above you exudes that kind of energy right now! BiscuitsToTheRescue (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

2. Neutral, for now. I'd like to point out that on this editor's very first day of editing they had already learned about wikilinking [17], knew about WP:CSD#G11 (admins can see deleted history of this userpage), knew about WP:AGF [18], knew about how to request semi-protection [19], and knew about WP:AIV [20] (and despite saying they didn't know about template warnings, they were using {{uw-vandalism2}} less than 3 hours later [21]. That's a rather astonishing level of knowledge for someone on their first day of editing. I would like to see this reconciled with their statement that they have never had another account. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

   I haven't placed a vote yet, and while I do find some of these things quite odd for a new editor (especially CSD), I figured out wikilinking in my second ever edit, so I don't see what's strange about that. In general though, I do agree that this editor's immediate competence when they first began editing is worth scrutiny. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

   I agree that wikilinking isn't suspicious (it's not too hard to figure out), but the templates and other policy knowledge is worth examining. I'm starting to get the vibe that the candidate has always viewed themself in an 'administrating' role on WP rather than an 'editing one'.Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 01:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

   I would say that there is a significant difference between knowing how to add a link and knowing the jargon of "wikilinking". Sdrqaz (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

   Yes, but seeing how we refer to internal links as wikilinks in our help pages and MoS, I don't think that in particular should raise suspicion, Sdrqaz.— Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 06:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

   I'm not saying that it's indicative of sockpuppetry, Ixtal. I just wanted to point out that two situations are not comparable. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

   Fair enough, Sdrqaz, it seems I misunderstood you due to the context. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 17:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

   Neutral I am waiting for their answer to question 6 but am considering opposing. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

   Neutral pending the answers to the already-proposed questions – let's give the candidate some breathing room to respond. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

   Neutral pending answers to questions. Even though I nominated SFR for EOTW, that has little influence on whatever my vote may end up being. Opposing editors that are suspicious of SFR's quick learning (which is understandable), should come up with questions that will allow the candidate to explain themselves. While RFA votes are subjective evaluations of trust-worthiness, there is no benefit to prejudging the abilities of editors as newcomers. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 07:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

   Neutral for now (might change my vote later). I do believe the GA sufficiently demonstrate the editor's ability to write quality content, even if they are mostly engaged in discussions. And I am likewise not convinced that "ticking off boxes" to someday become an admin is inherently a despicable thing to do. This application is certainly somewhat unusual, so I'll wait and research a bit more before making up my mind. –LordPeterII (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC) (Moved to support.) –LordPeterII (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

3. Neutral - I've been going back and forth. For some reason, I thought I remembered disagreeing with SFR on some substantial issues, but when I look at our interaction report and various other areas where he's been active, I'm just seeing someone who's pretty reasonable. There are understandable concerns expressed in the oppose section, but they're not enough to pull me to that side. I nearly jumped into the support column in response to an argument above that one should not enjoy being an admin, but although tempting, !voting in response to anyone other than the candidate seems like bad form. The thing I have a hard time getting past is, well, there's someone who goes by the same name who appears pretty active at a certain self-described "Wikipedia criticism" forum. That alone isn't enough to pull me into the oppose column, either, absent evidence of problematic behavior (which, to be clear, I'm not aware of). Still, the prospect of anyone in a position of trust (starting with admins, and more so for OS/CU/Arbs) seeking out engagement on a forum known for harassing Wikipedians and welcoming users banned from our projects (even if it's gotten a bit tamer in recent years, as some folks I trust have attested) is enough of a red flag that I find myself back to neutral. (I will of course strike my comments as needed if it's not the same SFR). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

   You know that there are many high-profile admins and current/former arbs that actively post at WPO, right?... ansh.666 15:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

   I do. It doesn't mean I'd automatically oppose (as here), but it's certainly a red flag, and I'd be unlikely to support any of their requests for additional perms/trust. I can only think of one time I opposed someone's bid for anything on the basis of their comments there, which I found egregious. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

   Neutral, leaning oppose per SandyGeorgia and others. The community was burned by this RfA (which I supported!) less than a year ago. Miniapolis 13:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC) (Moving to support.)

4. Neutral, with some concerns that I'll post here, see what subsequent discussion shows, and then move one way or the other. I find the opposes by SandyGeorgia and KoA very well-reasoned and concerning. In the answer to Q3, SFR refers to the Skepticism ArbCom case in the link to "this little thing", and says that "for the most part, I've mended fences with most of the editors involved there and we share a mutual respect." I was active in that case, and I'm pretty sure that there were more than a few named parties who would disagree about that mutual respect. I'll also note that another editor commented in the Workshop phase that SFR seemed to be throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks: link, near end of comments by others. There's some merit to that. On the other hand, I've gone back over my own interactions with SFR during that case, and other than what I've just said, I don't really have a lot of problems with it, and I saw clear evidence of intelligence and articulateness there. There's also the fact that SFR comments a lot at a Wikipedia criticism site, in ways that I find a little cheesy (more so than some respected editors who also comment there), although I recognize that this sort of thing is generally not a strong consideration for RfA. Taking this all together, I think it does fit with KoA's characterization of barrelling ahead. On the other hand, I'm sympathetic to supporting arguments that we have a problem with opposes at RfA where a candidate has been around enough to have accumulated enough gotchas, and that we should recognize that everyone makes mistakes, and that mistakes should not necessarily be disqualifying. So – I'm putting this out there, and will watch for what happens before making up my mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
5. Neutral The little interaction that I have had with SFR has been positive. However, the idea they were aware of the Eric Corbett drama and watched FRAMGATE from the sidelines doesn't really make sense to me unless they had a previous account or edited anonymously. The oppose of SandyGeorgia raises concerns. I'm assuming good faith here but unfortunately I can't support at this time. Polyamorph (talk) 07:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

   Neutral (moved to support) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

6. NeutralTheir contributions earn the praise of respected editors and they have an admirable humor but the insistence into having learned the Wikipedia guidelines that fast just makes it a bit suspicious. I and apparently also an Admin are challenged trying to address the correct venue in the right way, yet SFR appear to have learned a lot of what I wasn't able to learn in years within a day or two. I could have also approved less controversial candidates, so this time I stay neutral (At least for now).Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

General comments

I think it is worth noting that a Wikipedian who has spend much of their time editing talk/user pages rather than mainspace will naturally acquire more 'friends' than someone who edits content primarily. As such it might be constructive if support comments have more than a few words saying "yes please" or similar. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

In theory they'd also naturally acquire more 'opposite of friends' for the same reason though. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

That's true, and I fully endorse *everyone* leaving detailed comments, but in this case none of the oppose !votes seem to be based on negative past experiences with SFR (whereas we get phrases like "favourite editor" from the support side).Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

---

I think it's absolute nonsense that you need more experience than SFR has to be an admin. First we have User:Enterprisey/Tenures at RfA which shows that 18 months is hardly unprecedent. But I think that table is pretty misleading. For instance, I show up at 14 years. In reality I had been here ~18 months when I RfA'd. Some editors have more than enough experience after 12 months while others will not develop enough experience after 12 years (like me - 12 years in I wouldn't have been fit for RfA). We have other ways of judging whether someone has enough experience - the oft bemoaned questions being one way, another way is looking at their actual edits. It feels to me like these opposes are using "not enough experience" as something a bit more concrete than "I find this editor unsuitable for adminship" but this has the unfortunate effect of suggesting to some candidates who might be very ready to run that they should wait. I hope editors judge SFR on what he does or doesn't know (and what he has and hasn't done) rather than based on how long he's been around. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll be back to tender a specific (!)vote, but am really concerned by the idea that the editor might not have sufficient tenure to have acquired and demonstrated adequate competence. Writing this, I read the above and BK49 is of course also correct on the effect on other potential candidates with this. Even in the post 2016 admin world, we've have multiple candidates with 18 months (and several with much less) active editing. Those saying the candidate lacks experience should be able to demonstrate where the editor is falling short. 20% too low mainspace % many say - but are their multiple GAs flawed? Or point to some problematic small-a admin work diffs. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

In particular with this candidate, there several different substantive criticisms people have. Personally "The namespaces you edit indicate you might not be a good fit for the social capital that being an admin gives you" feels like an OK oppose to me (though I understand why NBB doesn't like it). But beyond that is a coherent concerns expressed by people like Lindsay. If that doesn't concern you but the length of tenure does I think we're firmly in the It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now. phase that NewYorkBrad talks about. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

BK, re your first post in this section, we are in violent agreement that this RFA should not discourage others relative to tenure, but the characterization of opposes as based on "length of tenure" is less than correct. I have supported (probably) many candidates with less tenure than this one; it's not how much time one has been editing, but how one has spent that time, and whether their edits inspire trust. RFA is about trust; I've read the explanation, and I can still say trust has not been inspired by this editor's trajectory, and the explanation leaves more questions than answers, which I won't belabor in an environment where one is allowed only two questions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Sandy - there certainly are substantive objections that can, and have, been made. But by no means are all opposes utilising them. That's almost my point, that if a candidate has failed to use their time well, then either poor edits/judgements/choices or a lack of suitable content/admin-adjacent work should be identifiable in absolute (not %) terms. Certainly a majority of opposes have done at least one of those. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

With respect to them, I see quite a few non-perfect candidates this year that would have either passed with lower percentages or outright failed in other years. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Depends on which other years we're talking about. If it's 2005 that's probably not true. If it's 2014 maybe it is true. I would suggest the fact candidates seem to either be passing with 90%+ support or not at all means it's both true that people might have passed in the past with lower support percentages and that the community found consensus that standards have risen are true. That the current "all or nothing" is a symptom of increased standards and "perfect" candidates rather than a suggestion that this problem is not currently an issue at RfA. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Every RfA is unique. The sample size is too small in recent years to identify any true trends. The only change I have noticed is the increasing use of this general comments section in which many threads and comments - like this one - are, well, general and IMO really belong at WT:RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

---

There's a couple of interrelated threads in the oppose section that are confusing to me. Experience, and mainspace contributions. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, when we edit an article we aren't just editing an article, we're also discussing it on the article talk page, or in an edit summary, or on a user's talk page. Sometimes, almost exclusively in controversial content areas, changes are contentious and have to be discussed either prior to their implementation or as part of a WP:BRD cycle. In that circumstance, a piece of prose that is added to or changed in an article is the work of several editors. However because of the nature of editing pages, only one person gets to actually make the edit in the mainspace. Something similar exists for editors who contribute to feature article reviews and good article reassessments , where much of the discussion on the prose happens in a talk page archive in the Wikipedia space. Even edit requests on a FA can involve multiple editor drafting and redrafting a piece of text, but ultimately only a single editor will actually hit the edit button on the article proper. I fear that editors who are focusing entirely on the overly simplistic piechart on Xtools are missing much of the overall nature as to what exactly the article talk page contributions by SFR actually are.
I know SFR primarily through their edits in the GENSEX content area, one of our more contentious topics on enwiki. As such, BRD followed by a protracted talk page discussion is often the norm when adding or editing content on an article. My question then for folks who wish to use the breakdown of SFR's contributions as a barrier to becoming an admin is, have any of you actually looked in depth at what the nature of SFR's talk page contributions are? Have you checked to see if SFR has made significant contributions to a piece of text, but ultimately was not the editor who made the final edit to the article proper? Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that arguing based on Xtools charts alone is too simplistic. They're meant to give an overview, but you are right, talk page discussions are important for content as well. A dozen mainspace edits made as part of an edit war would constitute less "content creation" than a single, quality edit made as the result of a thorough talk page discussion. –LordPeterII (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

---

I think there's one point that needs urgent clarifications, and that are the "possible sockpuppet" allegations. There have been several votes above who argue either based on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eostrix, highly suggestive of a returning editor, pretty clear this isn't their first account and so forth. A sockpuppet-admin must ofc be prevented at all cost, but it's not helpful if we have people voting against one purely based on speculation. I have not seen any proof of the allegations presented apart from their short tenure and fast learning of the rules, but if there is any reason for doubt, it should imo be discussed rather now than later. I don't know how much can be done to clarify the situation, but I wanted to bring this up. –LordPeterII (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Is anybody in a position to verify any of this answer ScottishFinnishRadish gives to question 6: At that point I emailed arbcom directly from my actual, real life, real name email address. I continued using that email address up through the Arbcom case I was involved in. When I was IP blocked and dealing with checkusers and UTRS I disclosed both my real name and employer. ... Oversighters have access to my real name as well, because my early reports to the OS email were sent when my real email address was still linked to my account.

I suppose it is no proof of not being a sock, but it could influence my !vote. Sockpuppet detection is far from my area, though, so I'm a little puzzled as to what to think. — Bilorv (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Barkeep confirmed the emails on the talk page. More generally, the issue is that nobody can prove they're not a sock. It's proving a negative, and is quite impossible. If there's suspicions, they need to be investigated to the extent that they can, and in this case, I believe they were. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the argument has been mostly that they seemed "too experienced" for a newbie (and, somewhat contradictory, also that they lack sufficient experience). This might give rise to the suspicion that they had used another account before, which SFR denied (also see the point by Taking Out The Trash below). But even if they had used another account previously, there's no evidence that they are currently abusing multiple accounts, which is what Sockpupping is all about. You do not have to have an account to edit Wikipedia, or to know how it works: Nothing is "hidden" behind account creation. In the answer to Question 6 SFR stated that they had edited an lurked around as IP for a while, which sufficiently explains their expertise to me. If anyone has any proof that they have been socking, that's something different. But I agree @Vanamonde, there's no reason for doubt currently. –LordPeterII (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Regarding Q16, are off-wiki comments like that one fair game here? I don't think they should be, but perhaps I'm off base... –FlyingAce^✈hello 19:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it is an inappropriate question.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The question has been struck. Primefac (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

---

I probably won't vote since I've ever actually commented on RFA before (though I frequently read them). But I feel like I should ask: is it actually required for an RFA candidate to publicly disclose any previous account(s) they have edited under? I was under the impression that if (for example) the current account is a WP:CLEANSTART, that privately disclosing to ArbCom (and then confirming they have done so) was considered sufficient. If private disclosure of previous account(s) is sufficient to run for ArbCom yourself, but it's not sufficient for what should be a much-lower standards RFA, I think we have a problem. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

You are correct, it's not required to publicly disclose any previous accounts. ansh.666 21:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

In that case, all these comments about "socking" are completely irrelevant and should be disregarded by the crats. Even if this isn't their first account, they confirmed in one of their answers that they disclosed privately to ArbCom. Case closed. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

In such cases, an arb posts a comment "the candidate has disclosed their previous account(s) to the committee." If that comment is missing, it means candidate hasn't disclosed anything. (not talking about this particular candidate — in general.) —usernamekiran (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

---

I'm interested to see how the bureaucrats are going to consider votes reliant on accusations of sockpuppetry, since those don't have evidence supporting them. Nythar^T.C 00:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe you answered your own question, but the general answer for "how will 'crats deal with XYZ" is always "by weighing the strength of the arguments and seeing how they fit into the consensus of the RfA as a whole". This is true whether the hot-button issue is socking, temperament, political motivations, or what have you. Primefac (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Nythar I've reread the opposes and wonder where these "accusations of sockpuppetry" you refer to are? This is RFA, not SPI. At RFA, the third standard question is: 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? SFR's very unusual editing start was called out by a sysop, and yet neither the candidate nor the nominators thought that worthy of disclosure in the nomination. A candidate is expected to divulge past issues in question 3, and red flags are certainly raised when they do not and their nominators don't counsel them to do so (that is, SFR finds themselves in a bind of their own making). Supporters and opposers are well within their rights to question that kind of behavior and say they will never support a candidate whose entire editing history is not the kind they trust, as it is suggestive of ticking the boxes en route to RFA.

Perhaps you consider Hammersoft's "I would like to see this reconciled with their statement that they have never had another account" as the "accusation of sockpuppetry"? That's a rightful request for an explanation of an issue the candidate and their nominators decided not to disclose in the nomination statement. I see in other pages this rightful inquiry has been well twisted by both supporters and opposers into this "accusations of sockpuppetry", but aside from the concern raised early in ScottishFinnishRadish's editing history by Spartaz, which SFR and his nominators decided not to mention, I don't see accusations of socking here, rather statements that were never made converted to a rallying cry in the support section.

Re the candidates explanation, I see a misguided notion that one can just email the arbs when they find themselves in a hotspot, and think that covers their bases and they don't have to even bring up this past concern as part of Q3. The history here is not necessarily socking or cleanstart or RTV or anything; it may be elitism or just a misguided notion about how Wikipedia works, which is a different concern with respect to adminship.

One is not accountable to the arbs on Wikipedia, rather the entire community, and when the candidate came to RFA, they chose not to disclose a past issue. Individuals in that community are well within their rights to say they will never support an editor whose editing history appears to be one of checking the boxes enroute to RFA and to ask an editor to explain their early history in that context. That *other* editors in their subsequent supports or opposes twisted this valid reasoning into a simplistic notion of socking, or how easy it is to learn how to wikilink or read the manual, or a length of tenure discussion, and then used those distortions of the actual oppose as a rallying cry, is not something the 'crats should ignore when they start discussing the validity of supports and opposes. Any editor can most certainly enter a valid oppose based on never supporting someone whose editing history is unusual in ways that is suggestive of ticking the right boxes on the way to RFA without creating content. I can't recall a case where the crats every turned away a marginal candidate, so it's probably moot anyway, but the distortion of the opposes by subsequent supporters should not sway the 'crats away from what the actual opposes are. The claim that opposes are based on socking is an invented strawman. RFA is about trust, and I will never trust a candidate whose editing history suggests they are just ticking the right boxes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I didn't single out your vote. I was at first thinking of voting oppose after reading your vote and reviewing their past editing history, but I waited until the nominee replied to question 6 and the reply seemed reasonable. Having suspicions isn't wrong, but the amount of alternate account editing suspicions is strange. I also find it strange how some here are saying 20 months isn't enough without a general idea of how long "enough" is. The argument that the nominee is inexperienced is a valid one, though. Nythar^T.C 08:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I did not intend to say that you had singled me out; I do intend to point out the distortion that has occurred on this page and others about what the actual basis of the opposes is, as the crats should not be misled by the twisting that has occurred. Re 20 months, I've supported candidates with less tenure; they used their time well and built trust along with content, and never ticked the right boxes on the path to RFA. They just proved themselves to be examplary honest people, which is something it doesn't take 20 months to see. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I apologize if I distorted the opposers' arguments. I was simply asking to know how bureaucrats would deal with suspicions of previous accounts being used as arguments at RfA if there isn't evidence for them. I wasn't trying to discredit valid arguments. Nythar^T.C 08:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

No need really; I was speaking in generality about quite a few comments on this page and elsewhere, and this thread was the best place to respond re the likely 'crat chat and the overall distortion. I'm sorry for my lack of clarity-- it often happens with me :) -- and that I made you feel singled out. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed this in my support vote and comments on WT:RFA but in my opinion it is unfair to hold the socking conversation over him as I routinely ask precocious editors at RFA about previous accounts. I remain satisfied that he is not a returning user. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• I wholly concur in Sandy Georgia's observations here. Had the candidate and their nominators been forthcoming and transparent from the outset, saying "I edited as an IP for a decade before registering this account and then decided to patrol Recent Changes whenever I'm bored at work.", this nomination would have gotten off on a very different foot. But hiding the ball like that is, in and of itself, another red flag that inspires zero confidence on top of the many other strong reasons raised by the various opposes. Banks Irk (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• This is RfA not SPI so I wouldn't be examining the evidence of sockpuppetry; though I would take into account the statements that people put forward that they feel they don't trust the candidate because of activity that concerns them, and then balancing that against the statements put forward by people who are reassured by the candidates rationales for the appearance of their activity that may give the impression that the candidate is a returning user. The 'Crats role here is to assess the consensus of the community in trusting the candidate to be an admin; we are not here to assess if the candidate is a sock. If someone feels there is sufficient evidence that the candidate is a returning banned user they could open a SPI, and that issue would properly be assessed there. Here we assess the community trust in the candidate to be a responsible admin, and in particular how that trust stands up when the candidate comes under strain, such as with concerns raised about the candidate's particular knowledge of how Wikipedia operates. This is no different to any RfA where concerns are raised about a candidate. SilkTork (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you, SilkTork, for the measured and comprehensive response, which puts to rest concerns I had when I saw this thread (along with deep concerns I had about past 'crat passes of candidates with marginal numbers); opposes should not be disregarded because of how they were interpreted by others. Note specifically that Newyorkbrad summarizes four kinds of opposes, which misses the essence of my oppose-- which means my lack of clarity was a problem. I don't trust RFA candidates who give the appearance of ticking the right boxes en route to RFA rather than creating content (which these days means more than articles, eg scripts, bots other technical editor specialties) and eventually happening in to RFA. We have multiple Supporters basically saying "not a sock" when no one ever said they were a sock. A returning editor is not the same thing as a sock. I can't speak for others, but the reason no evidence for sockpuppetry has been presented is that there is no accusation of sockpuppetry, hence the distortion of the original concerns. THe concerns relate to lack of disclosure of a known and important issue (look how easy it could have been, ask Spartaz before launch and clarify from the start), the "barreling ahead" approach, the idea that an 800 or 1100 word "good" article (eg, one editor thinks it's decent enough) ticks a content box, and now, of greater concern to me ... an arbcase (Skeptics) I have yet to find time to read. I appreciate you putting a measured perspective on a potential 'crat chat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Would appreciate if another editor could ask a question (since both of mine were answered) asking if SFR would recuse themselves from administrative activity related to Scientific skepticism due to their involvement in the arbcom case. Someone mentioned that possibility in a comment above and think it is a question worth asking, even if the candidate responds in the negative. Wouldn't sway my vote (which is why I've kept it in support after thinking about this), but still a valuable question.— Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 21:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done and thank you for the suggestion, Ixtal. Beccaynr (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

---

I'm completely ripped up about this nomination. I understand that we badly need admins, that it is a terrible job that I can't imagine anyone really would want. SFR seems to have this drive, he spends a lot of his time dealing with the admin area. Tons of time on talk pages as Tomorrow and tomorrow has said, he seems to have a lot of friends. But here it is, as some have said, the mess of the Arbcom and COIN and attack after attack by some here has left a horrible taste in my mouth. I am still very upset over that nightmare, more so than I probably realized until I saw this admin request for SFR. The odd thing is that it was SFR that drew my attention here [22] I appreciate that gesture. SFR is always trying to make friends with everyone, he says he smooths things over. I'm still hurting from that mess. Also I would like to mention as I did over and over in the various admin actions against me - we badly need people correctly trained to edit. Create content and not just spending time reverting, enforcing policies and chit-chatting on various talk pages. I want to see an admin that takes that seriously. Sgerbic (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

---

I wish that editors would be accurate in describing the editor's tenure and content contributions. We can all count, can't we? The candidate has edited consistently and regularly in every one of the last 20 months, and has over 5200 main space contributions. Cullen328 (talk) 07:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

---

I have been a an editor for many years and I was an admin for many years, but resigned because being over 80, I thought I was getting too old to be a good admin. This discussion really worries me. It seems that it is becoming very hard to become an admin. If this is not reversed, we will find that we do not have enough admins to do the admin work that is needed. Are we beginning to see the death of wikipedia? I am seriously worried about the future of WP. --Bduke (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Not only is becoming an admin extremely difficult here, but we are also losing admins much much faster than we are gaining them. Many people's criteria are way too strict for the situation we are in right now and are making it too big of a deal. --Ferien (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not so pessimistic, though I can see what you mean. People have developed high, sometimes maybe too high standards. But maybe that is a sign that the project has matured? We've had several successful RfAs recently, although we're still losing old admins. If the number of successful RfAs stabilizes, I assume the number of admins should eventually stabilize as well. And maybe people will find that they can also become an admin without 90%+ support, for what it's worth. This one here is currently around 74%, so it might well turn out to be a successful one, with an invitation for SFR to earn the trust of the 26% in the future. But maybe I'm generally more optimistic because of my relative youth ^^ –LordPeterII (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

---

My only comment is how long do we hold a candidates first edits as a new editor against them? Does how they behaved in the first few months, before they were aware of Wikipedia's policies and practices, follow them for the rest of their tenure on Wikipedia? I can see how this would be important if the candidate only had a year's worth of editing experience but after a few years, shouldn't this be discounted and only their recent behavior be assessed as their fitness for adminship is examined?

This is just a general question for RfA participants because I think it will come up again at future RfAs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think most rational people would consider the first few months of behavior as significant, once someone has been around long enough to have a RfA. In my opinion, even things like blatant vandalism are excusable once someone "grows up" and discovers higher purposes here. People can and do grow and learn. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a substantial misstatement of what the concerns are. I thought I was done weighing in here, but I find this framing of the issues very surprising. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)