Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ScottishFinnishRadish: Difference between revisions

The following discussion is preserved as a request for adminship that has been placed on hold by a bureaucrat pending a decision as to the outcome. Please do not modify the text. The result of the discussion will be posted soon.

ScottishFinnishRadish

• See /Bureaucrat chat. Acalamari 01:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (234/92/5); 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)

Optional question from Clayoquot

29. Under what circumstances would you use BLP revision deletion, and when would you not use it? Some hypothetical or real examples of BLP issues might help us to understand your thought process.

A: The only real examples I have are of when I would have used the tool, but it was determined that it wasn't necessary, as all of the other examples are revdel'd or oversighted. I've requested revdel/OS through the OS email link many times, and to my recollection, my accuracy rate is very high. This was the last request I sent that was declined. Although it was standard run-of-the-mill vandalism, the use of sexual orientation to attack is harmful to both the article subject and the community that is being used as an insult. I have a pretty firm stance against misgendering, attacks based on sexual orientation, gender identification, pronoun choice and the like. Just yesterday there was this, which those with the right goggles can see, which I requested for a revdel due to misgendering and general Capital T Truth ranting, so both disruption and attacks based on gender identity. Deadnaming of those who were not notable before their transition can also be a valid revdel reason, depending on the sourcing related to the deadname, and if it was added to harass the article subject. Accusations of crimes without legitimate sourcing are another revdel target. If there is legitimate sourcing but discussion determines that the accusations are not warranted in the article that would not be on the table for revdel. It's hard to draw an exact line, and I've gotten a decline from the OS email and seen that another admin had suppressed the edit on their own initiative. An example of something that was horrible but didn't require revdel or oversight was on 2022 pregnancy of a 10-year-old in Ohio, which is actually revdel'd for other reasons. I didn't request a revdel of the infobox because, although it was absolutely abhorrent, it did not specifically name or identify a living person, which I see as another important qualifier. The material at issue was dealing with an anonymous person. If the infobox had contained a name, even sourced, I would have requested a revdel because listing someone as a participant in their own rape is always revdelable in my book. If the person had been named in sources but not used in the article I'm up in the air. I'd probably ask some of the oversighters who've answered my requests in the past. Although transphobic, homophobic and racist terms are horrible, when not targeting a specific living person or group of living people they wouldn't fall under BLP revdels, although depending on the circumstance, it may be acceptable to revdel as purely disruptive material.

Again, it's difficult to draw an exact line, and the line is open to interpretation but I think that I've done a reasonably decent job with my requests for revdel and OS up to this point, and although I don't actually know what those who handle the queue think of my requests, almost all of them end in revdel or oversight. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. If you had been an admin when the first example you gave arose, would you have deleted this revision? Why or why not? I'm also interested in how you would decide whether deadnaming was done to harass the article subject. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I would have deleted the revision, because it used a sexual orientation as an insult and placed itself as a quote coming from the article subject. It's a pretty edge case, and the OS that handled the request also got a second opinion on their end. Again, it's not a bright line, and people differ on it. At this point, if I saw something similar I would probably reach out for a second opinion. Depending on how bad I perceived the severity I might revdel while I waited for a second opinion, and restore it if others didn't think it was warranted.

As for deciding on what's harassment, that's a damn hard question to answer without specific context, but it's generally easy to recognize when you see it, like the height shit and fatneek shit on Talk:KSI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Optional question from Sdrqaz

30. Above, you referred to comments on Talk:KSI while answering a question about revision deletion. Could you clarify if you mean that you would have revision deleted them?

A: No, I wouldn't have. I was using the situation as KSI as an example of the often obvious nature of off-wiki brigading, which was asked about, I'm also interested in how you would decide whether deadnaming was done to harass the article subject. I also did not request revdel or OS for the requests. Sorry about the terse nature of my reply, busy day at work. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:40, 19 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)

   I continue to support this nomination. SFR's content creation experience is plenty for my criteria, and I worry that expecting more GAs (or even FAs) is too high a bar for today's Wikipedia, so in need of more administrators. I'm heartened to see as much talk-space engagement as the candidate has, and I agree with those who note how necessary it is in contentious topic areas. As admirable as dedicated focus to content creation is, article protection is a necessary evil and it leaves good-faith but anonymous/new contributors in the lurch. SFR's embrace of request work means more such content editors can participate, and SFR makes that possible while politely but firmly blocking bad-faith or out-of-process requests. I've enacted (with tweaks) requested edits that SFR turned down, and I've disagreed with SFR on some content matters. These (minor) disputes have evidenced to me exaclty the kind of temperament I hope to see in sysop candidates. I see no compelling evidence of sockpuppetry, multiple-account use, or hat collecting. I second the well-informed commentary of Robert McClenon, Goldsztajn, and Wugapodes, among others. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:00, 19 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)

   Reaffirimg my support. Tipping my hat to Levivich, who could not have said it better.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

   Revenge opposes? really. I hope that's not true. Such only harm the Project. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

   That term has now been struck, Deepfriedokra. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

   @Vanamonde93: Thanks. That's a relief. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:16, 19 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)

    I'm re-affirming support despite the noted opposition below. I have been genuinely impressed by SFR's activity during this RFA. For example, I can't remember the last time a nominee has continued to monitor RCP during their RFA, but ScottishFinnishRadish has not shied away from doing that. That takes a level of grit I can't even comprehend. Clear admin material. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:59, 17 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)

    To add some detail to my support - I am aware of SFR generally and my overall impression is that he is amicable and thoughtful, and I am particularly appreciative of his interest in using admin tools to protect the encyclopedia, including BLPs. I also considered the nominators, and spot-checked SFR's contributions, including at AfD. After editors I know from their work on contentious topic areas expressed enthusiastic support, "of course!" seemed like a reasonable summary of my view at the time. As this RfA has progressed, evidence-based opposition has been raised, and SFR appears responsive to constructive feedback, which seems to further support his readiness for the tools. Also, I appreciate a diversity of focus in the admin corps, and this includes admin who help protect the content creation process from disruption. Beccaynr (talk) 18:47, 17 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)

    Reaffirming my support and addressing a couple of issues. For one, the clarification regarding a trajectory aimed at adminship rather than at content writing. I am inclined to believe the nominators when they say SFR had to be talked into running, not the least because of his sticking his neck out in touchy areas like the Skeptics Arbcom case, and sticking to his guns on BLP, where several !voters perceive his interpretation as overly strict. That includes the January exchange on his talk page, where he asserted the BLP exemption for 3RR; he has now stated that he should have stepped back rather than continuing to edit war, but it was an instance of his firmly doing what he thought was right, and justifying it in those terms; the opposes here mentioning "wikilawyering" and glibness all attest to his not saying and doing what was politic, but rather what he believed to be right. On the other hand, a couple of statements here refer to his making friends; I think that's commendable, and offsets the otherwise plausible concern that he has been politicking, preparing for a "policeman"-type role. I also draw a rather different inference than some Oppose !voters from his choice to respond to edit requests over creating or expanding more articles—which as others have noted makes his pie chart very different from those of most "content admins". This is an editor who edits at work, while observing automated processes or in short downtimes. Because Wikipedia is not a social network, there's an invidious tendency for editors to be unaware that others' life/work circumstances are not necessarily like their own. (The meme of "language I would get fired for using at work" is a good example.) SFR may well care too much about his job to turn up to work with a ton of books, or open 20 reference tabs on his personal laptop when he's supposed to be working, and have found instead that responding to edit requests both benefits the encyclopedia and is something he can do at work. And he may have other things to do on the weekend. He's racked up a huge number of edits, very few of them from making small changes to get his edit right or from staccato bursts of vandal reversion, the usual red flags that an editor may be inflating their edit count. That's one issue. The other is the Eric Corbett minefield. I have a little cred in that matter, although it's from the end of the saga. I'm especially sad to be in disagreement with Ealdgyth here, and as I recognized in my !vote by speaking of "the cut of his jib", RfA is in large part about how we perceive a candidate's character, which is a personal matter. But there were and are many viewpoints (not to say faultlines in Wikipedia politics) about Eric, partly because he himself is a real person, not a saint and not a politician. The view expressed by SFR is not uncommon, especially since his response to Q27 clearly focuses on the Arb case (the response draws a parallel with the Skeptics case) and does not suggest that should SFR become an admin, he would put the boot in on any prolific content creator just because. Eric would undoubtedly have made hay with his typing report for "rapport" (which may indicate autocorrect from responding as soon as possible, on a phone?) but the suggestion of first trying to talk to the editor before the gears of AN/I and ArbCom began grinding on them is very much the approach I like to see from an admin, especially since SFR apparently sees the issue the way Jimbo framed it: prolific content creator who is uncivil. (That's also how it's been repeatedly presented on WO.) Asking the question to see whether he'd read enough and had enough curiosity to be aware of the back history and wiki-politics is fair when framed as an opportunity for him to redeem himself by showing extraordinary insight for someone who joined Wikipedia maybe 2 years ago, but I don't think his response is unreasonable for someone who has merely read about it in recent years, since he can't be expected to know the matter is such an iceberg and so divisive. So I don't regard his response as so lacking in empathy as Ealdgyth does. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:57, 18 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)

    Comment I'm not changing my !vote, but this made me lose a bit of respect for them. Being WP:CIVIL is important. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:36, 19 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)

    Since my initial !vote was glib, coming back to expand and re-affirm support:

    1. We'd expect talkspace edits from an editor answering 1000+ edit requests, which are all in talkspace. But even putting that aside, content editing requires discussion, so talkspace and mainspace should be considered together as content edits. SFR's combined main+talk % is 67%. It is beyond a doubt that they are primarily focused on content. With over 5,000 mainspace edits, they also have sufficient content experience. We have here a candidate with a content focus, and content experience.
    2. "Checking the boxes enroute to RFA", if that means doing admin-like stuff, is a good thing not a bad thing. We want candidates to gain experience prior to applying. It's absolutely bizarre to hold relevant experience against a candidate. We only want admins who don't want to be admins? Or we only want admins who have no prior admin-like experience? Neither will work.
    3. But that one is not as bizarre as the suggestion that someone who has been here for 18 months and has racked up almost 30k edits does not have enough tenure. Honestly, such an oppose rationale should be barred; we should not count those !votes; and editors who repeatedly make this !vote should be TBANed from RFA. It's just insanity. If it wasn't enough experience, we'd see much more evidence of mistakes made by SFR; instead, we have a few bad edit request responses out of 1,000+, an error rate below 1%, which is better than most of us. If it wasn't enough experience, we'd see admins with similar levels of experience making a bunch of mistakes after getting the bit; but we don't see that. In fact, I believe all of the desysopped admins in history had more tenure when they became admins (and had years of admin experience when they were nontheless desysopped...with one exception I can think of). There is no evidence that <18mo or <30k edits is somehow too little for an admin candidate.
    4. We've also added insult to the insanity: the idea that SFR is not being truthful in their answer to Q6 is entirely without evidence. And the evidence raised, such as learning to wikilink on the first day, or learning how to use a template in less than 3 hours, hits the trifecta of bizarre, insane, and insulting. I've written enough about this at WT:RFA that I won't belabor the point here.
    5. "Revenge !votes"--that is, people who disagreed with SFR about Eric Corbett, or about the Skepticism case, or whatever else, and who are opposing explicitly because of that prior disagreement, do not persuade me about the character or fitness for adminship of the candidate (though they teach me something about the opposer).
    6. Probably the best evidence of suitability is, as others have pointed out, how well SFR has handled this RFA--much better than some admin and non-admin editors in this RFA, as well as being better than some past RFA candidates who have been in or near the discretionary range in their own RFAs. SFR has answered Q's fully (even when they've been repetitive), taken concerns seriously (even the ones I think are ridiculous), and has even continued to edit as normal during the RFA. This is rare and demonstrates calmness during stressful times. It's the temperament we want in an admin.

    Thank you for volunteering. Levivich (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

    @Levivich:, I really appreciate the extent to which you've supported this RFA, but I hope you're willing to strike the comment about "revenge opposes". Many of the opposes are quite unfair comments on SFR's character; they don't need to be paid back in kind. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

    You're right, Vanamonde93; struck/reworded. Levivich (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

    Thanks, appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:47, 19 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)

    Reaffirming support in case it is useful to do so. I elaborate a bit on some aspects of my !vote above at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Accusing someone of being a sock in an RfA? if people want to understand that part more. But what I consider the unfairness of some of the opposes isn't the only reason I'm supporting ScotttishFinnishRadish. I genuinely do think they'd make a good admin even I don't agree with everything in their approach. But I don't think that's nessecary because reasonable people can disagree on many things and just because they might have different areas of interest/expertise doesn't mean they don't care about everything else. I also think ScottishFinnishRadish is a very thoughtful individual and that that is a valuable quality to have. Clovermoss (talk) 20:53, 19 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)

    Since this looks like it may be coming to a crat chat - I really don't agree with "not enough experience", "too much experience for a newbie", "not enough mainspace", etc., and like Carrite have had positive interaction with SFR off-wiki. No concerns for me. ansh.666 00:15, 19 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)

    Reaffirming my support. Most of the opposes are not convincing. Scorpions13256 (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

    It looks like you're going to pass. Best of luck. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:41, 19 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)

    Following up. I do not believe that 2 GAs is an indication of a "lack of content creation". But the main reason I came here: if you believe that this is not SFR's first account, who, pray tell, is the sockmaster? Until someone comes up with an account name, I will not be convinced by wild guesses. HouseBlaster^talk 18:45, 17 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)

    Coming back, as others have, to reaffirm my support. The view of new editors expressed by many of the oppose votes is frankly distasteful and SFR has done far more than they need to try and answer them. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 01:59, 19 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)

     Ealdgyth's oppose in particular has valid concerns for reasons explained by SandyGeorgia (and other related opposes of course), but Wugapodes puts it nicely why I don't think it merits disqualification from adminship. (I also trust the candidate to read and consider some of what's been said here) —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 01:00, 19 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 addressed 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)

     Reaffirming support. I've been following the discussions with interest, and it seems the concerns about SFR being a sock or having edited under an undisclosed account previously have largely died away, to be replaced with more valid concerns about temperament/content creation. However, I haven't changed my views; no one is perfect and I agree with the points made in Wugapodes' thoughtful response. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:40, 19 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)

     Reaffirming my support. The positives I was aware of seem to have continued. Nothing meaningful regarding the concerns on early editing precocity has come up, so not worth considering. Other concerns raised include the skepticism RFaR, where I see thoughtful concern on patterns (whether or not warranted) rather than meddlesome punitiveness; the response to Q27, which I find unobjectionable; and a tempest in a teapot about when exactly one should recognize an LTA sock and wait until it is blocked to revert it. Nothing to change my mind. Martinp (talk) 09:57, 19 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)

     I'm going to reaffirm this support, as last time we had a contentious RfA with a 'crat chat, one of them tried to deprecate support that did not explicitly come back and state the same view. Anyway, Wugapodes has giving more arguments for trusting this user with the tools, and the comments from opposition have been moving from "not ever" to "not quite there" (although when was the last time you saw a successful second RfA within two years of the first one?) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

     Lourdes 2 in 2018, Primefac 2 in 2017. Primefac (talk) 10:28, 19 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)

     Going to reaffirm my support, since we're closing soon and it looks like this is going to crat' chat. I can understand where some of the opposes are coming from, however, I do not feel the concerns are terrible enough to not support. Also going to endorse Wugapodes below. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

     Some of the opposes below might want to read Wikipedia:When not to link to WP:NOTNOW. The candidate is not a new user, and with nearly 2 years tenure and 28k+ edits it can be expected that the candidate knows what the general requirements at RfA are and what adminship is. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:58, 19 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)
165. Support, seems cromulent. The opposes raise valid concerns but I am not convinced that any of those concerns disqualify the nominee from janitorial work. -- Visviva (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
166. Support—In the spirit of AGF, I am more than willing to give ScottishFinnishRadish the benefit of the doubt insofar as it pertains to the sockpuppetry allegations. The rest of the opposing points are, in my view, wholly unpersuasive. Adminship is not rocket science, and it's not a title reserved exclusively for The Ideal Editor™ who has the golden ratio of article-to-talk page edits. It is a set of permissions that are given to competent, trustworthy contributors. Kurtis ^(talk) 01:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
167. Support. ScottishFinnishRadish has been a competent RCP-er who I've come across often. Regarding sockpuppetry concerns, perhaps folks are jaded that so many new users seem to jump in before reading any new-user guidance, but I can't imagine why it would be concerning that somebody knows what a "wikilink" is on their first day. Wikilinking is one of the main lessons in Help:Introduction - candidly, every good faith new editor should know what that means. Knowing templating is less obvious, but when a new user see's an edit summary tagged with "Twinkle" and clicks on it, it's pretty clear what the tool is and how to use it. Should SFR pass the RfA, my only advice would be to rely less on the edit request response templates. While almost every response I've seen from SFR has been correct, it'd be better to give a bit more handwritten explanation. Many of the users who request changes are new, and even if some of them are in bad faith, it looks much better to be kinder than is necessary, rather than colder. I say this as a heavy user of user warning templates myself. Politanvm ^talk 03:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
168. Support Legoktm (talk) 06:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
169. Support, tentatively, per some of the opposes I've read, but I like him! -- œ^™ 07:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
170. Support Sensible user who will benefit the project with the tools. As for concerns about being a "new user", candidate has a lengthier editing history and more mainspace contributions than I did when I became an administrator; I do not share those concerns and believe that the candidate has more than sufficient experience for the position. Spencer^T•C 09:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
171. Support slightly concerned by the length of tenure but not enough to oppose or even be neutral. SFR will be a fine addition. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
172. Support I was sitting in neutral and wasn't planning to comment, but in reading through the various !votes I thought it was worth taking a stance. I also share the concern that SFR is not as new as they claim to be, but without sufficient evidence to back that up I don't want to treat that as an deal breaker (although I absolutely respect those who see it as one). If I look beyond that, what I see is an editor willing to make hard decisions based on policy even when those decisions are going to make things difficult for them. SFR has waded into dangerous waters, but my impression is not that they did so accidently, but they did so knowing that it was going to be difficult because they are willing to take risks for the project. And I can respect that. If they were simply hat collecting then I don't doubt that SFR would have recognised that the best way to do that would be to keep their head down, avoid anything controversial, and act in exactly the manner that would make their RFA nice and easy. Instead, though, they have done their best to stick to policy on difficult topics, and this is something I can get behind. Thus ultimately, while I understand and share some of the concerns, admins willing to put their neck out while tackling difficult topics are hard to come by, and I'm willing to support someone who does. - Bilby (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
173. Support. The editor is an experienced discussion closer and would do a good job making tough closes as an admin, especially at XfD venues. They have more than enough edits to the mainspace and the fact that they so often comment on article talk pages indicates that they value the importance of discussion and collaboration on Wikipedia and that they have experience in editing areas where their edits are contested. The editor would be a net positive as an administrator, so I support them becoming one. With respect to the (frankly poorly supported) allegations that this is a sock evading scrutiny, there's a formal process to deal with that. But frankly I don't see any good evidence that this is more than someone who edited as an IP before becoming an editor with an account, and editing as an IP is and has been a perfectly acceptable way to contribute to Wikipedia. Editors who think this is a scrutiny-evading sock need to provide more evidence for this than the simple claim that the editor was competent; we need to avoid casting aspersions against editors in good standing. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
174. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
175. Support solid answers, nothing that causes significant concerns. Ravensfire (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
176. Support. I don't usually !vote in these anymore; but with the percentage hanging in the "discretionary" range, I have to say that I find the oppose reasons even more unconvincing than usual. Deor (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
177. Support. The reason I support this candidate is because they say "I've got about 90 requests for page protection, and over 200 AIV reports, so I have significant experience in those areas." Curiouswriter18 (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
178. Support. I am cognizant of, but do not subscribe to, the argument that SFR has too little mainspace experience, when you consider that most admin work (deletion, protection, blocks... but not AE) are done to the page itself, rather than to the contents of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotReallySoroka (talk • contribs) 01:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
179. Support. Passes my criteria. As someone who edited as an IP and actually read the policies as a new editor, the sockpuppet accusations are ridiculous. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
180. Support. I swore they already had the mop, but they are a well established user who definitely is mop-worthy. @CLYDEFRANKLIN 03:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
181. Support. No hesitation here. Bgsu98 (talk) 04:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
182. Support, per solid answers to the questions in this RFA. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
183. Support, everything seems to indicate that SFR is a very good editor with an excellent grasp of policy and who is very good and cooperating with other editors. Their proven record of good behaviour dismisses any possible concerns about early editing IMV, and the fact that they have 2 GA's (not an easy feat, let's remember) easily puts to rest concerns about low content creation. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
184. Support per having 2 more GAs than me, 7 more months of continuous editing than I had going in to my RfA, and early edits that are far less suspicious than mine were. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
185. Support --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 09:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
186. Support, found precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
187. Support: Net positive. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
188. Per user:OhanaUnited and user:Newyorkbrad. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

     Prior account concerns are well answered at Q6.

     if he has sufficient mainspace experience, this should not be considered diminished by having other additional edits. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

189. I do not believe it violates AGF or NPA to consider, at any RfA, whether the candidate has omitted mention of past editing history. There is a known dangerous individual who came close to passing a year ago. Past editing concerns are in some way purely technical or procedural—different motives can produce identical editing history and (in the abstract) considerations of conflicts of interest, paid editing and sockpuppetry often fall on a balance of probability about whether the non-innocent motive is prohibitively unlikely. However, the answer to question 6 is completely plausible to me and in the absence of any concrete evidence, I can't take concerns about "suspicious" early editing behaviour into account.
     I am a passionate hater of the dramaboards and the culture there, so it is with some ambivalence that I end up in support, but having reviewed a random sample of ScottishFinnishRadish's comments, I can't find a strong case for opposition. I do believe that their general temperament could do with improvement: one example is here (You're wrong ... Glad to see we're done here). Another is here (Luckily good-faith BLP reverts are exempt from 3RR. Thanks for the warning though, I appreciate it). You should state your position firmly but without rudeness. However, low moments like these can be found for most experienced editors (I'm maybe not one to throw stones) and I don't quite think anything reaches the level where adminship would be a net negative.
     We need more admins in many of the areas ScottishFinnishRadish intends to work (please do try some copyright!). I'm sympathetic to the Laura Loomer and Climate change edit request responses: everyone makes imperfect edits when doing a task thousands of times, but I don't see evidence of negligence. ScottishFinnishRadish shows the capacity for strong content creation, which is important to understanding editing disputes, and a high general level of competence for all technical, procedural and policy/guideline areas of the website.
     I hope you will be a strong asset in AIV, RFPP and other admin areas. You have shown the capacity to keep an extremely level head in this RfA, so please keep doing so when in heated areas. — Bilorv (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
190. I don't give a damn about the "must tick X-number of contribution area boxes" nonsense proposed by many (oft perennial) opposers; I also don't care about the "must have X-years experience" drivel because that suggests Wikipedia is a thing in and of itself rather than a collaborative project seeking to gain high quality people as editors and admins all the time. I also very much trust the nominators and many of the supporters. But... I am concerned that SFR, when they first appeared, was evidently not a new editor. Then again, even with admin tools, there's no damage they can do physically to the project before an emergency desysop would kick in; back when I was only a reader of this site and not an editor, I was dimly aware of Pastor Theo and Robdurbar, both admins who gamed RfA and then went rogue IIRC. They were removed in a hurry and life went on. The same would apply to SFR, so... meh: it's no big deal. — Trey Maturin has spoken 18:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

     I know I'm arguing against my own position here, but even with admin tools, there's no damage they can do physically to the project before an emergency desysop would kick in is outright false as explained here (and I think I know most of what Cryptic is talking about) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

191. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 18:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
192. Support I am somewhat concerned by the edit request template responses, but because SFR has acknowledged that they can be unnecessarily offputting to newcomers, and that he has tried to help overhaul them, I am willing to overlook that. The Sockpuppetry allegations, on the other hand, seem completely irrelevent; I simply don't understand why we can't just leave sockpuppetry to SPI and Arbcom. They handled the Eostrix case successfully, blocking him before his RFA even officially passed. Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

     Addendum- To be clear, the reason I am voting for SFR is because he has addressed my initial concerns about edit requests satisfactorily, I do not find any of the other opposes convincing, and overall, he has enough experience to be a "good" admin. We cannot and should not expect perfection from an RFA candidate. Jackattack1597 (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

193. Support — the lack of experience isn't concerning to me, as DanCherek's RfA from August received unanimous support after he had been in the community for one and a half years.  MainPeanut  (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
194. Support, albeit with some trepidation, and having taken the oppose arguments very seriously. I've decided to move here from "neutral". I think the candidate is very smart, and has the best interests of the project at heart. The argument that the tenure is not long enough is very unconvincing to me; it's been plenty long enough, and there's no need to try again later. I care about familiarity with content creation, and it could be stronger, but with two GAs and fixing failed drafts, it's sufficient, and I'm looking for sufficience rather than excellence. The issue of other accounts is one that merited close scrutiny, but it's gotten that scrutiny and I'm satisfied that it's been put to rest. I still have concerns about the ArbCom skepticism case and about the "barelling ahead" stuff, but I'm reassured just enough to land here. I asked Q19 to see whether or not SFR would respond with something like BLP is sacrosanct and an admin is obligated to do whatever it takes. He didn't. I take off a fractional point for mentioning yet again the BLPN discussion, but otherwise the answer – discuss it with the other admin, and be prepared to just shrug and walk away – was exactly what I want to see in an RfA candidate. I'm choosing to believe that he is sincerely learning from the grilling of this RfA. To SFR: if you pass this RfA (I'm guessing it will wind up in Crat Chat, so who knows), please take this to heart: first, do no harm. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

     I wish I didn't have to come back and say this, but my trepidation just got worse. This response to an oppose: [12], is bad. I'm not doing the perennial and bogus "the candidate should never reply" thing. I'm saying that the "I don't know what would" defense of that comment (one has to look at the diffs), is the antithesis of what I want to see from an admin. I'm not going to move my position in this RfA yet again, and maybe it was just fatigue as a long RfA comes to an end, but that's pretty disappointing. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

     @Tryptofish: I acknowledge you wanted SFR to have said differently, but I disagree with your assessment of SFR's harshness regarding an over-the-top personal attack. Properly chastening wrongdoers I think does more than just slapping them with boilerplate warnings and a block. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

     Chris, I guess I'm going to stay here in the support section (sigh), but – it would have been so much easier to say, now, that he realizes in hindsight that his language was harsh, but RfA participants should weigh the context in which he said the original comment, where he was responding to an over-the-top personal attack. (I'm not sure how far over the top it really was, but, whatever.) I'm less worried about the original strong comment, than I am in the doubling down right here in this RfA. It's of a piece with having said that the parties in the ArbCom case had all come to mutual respect, which has been soundly refuted by some of them opposing here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

     I absolutely respect your position on this, as we all admire the perpetually calm admins. Our community needs another Anne Delong or Oshwah but SFR isn't either of them and, for me, that's ok. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

195. Support it's no big deal. Said above better. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

     And I agree with Wug below. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

196. Support. Creating encyclopedic content requires *judicial* editing as much as content writing. IMHO, there are good writers who make terrible editors and vice versa. Proper edit request work can require significant research and editorial judgement. Personally, I see SFR's contributions in the area of edit requests as an enormous contribution towards content building and maintenance. I think there's been an almost unparalleled due diligence (well, I can think of one recent exception) of SFR during this process, so despite claims to the contrary, we've seen high levels of transparency. There's a sort of "I won't support this unless I'm satisfied beyond reasonable doubt" framework being used to justify many of the oppose votes; our operating policy is AGF, and, at the least, then the corrolary is a balance of probabilities. I'm satisfied SFR will be a net positive. Could they make a mistake? Quite possibly...but then, who here hasn't? Do we have the mechanisms nneded to repair mistakes? We do. No big deal. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
197. Support: @Tryptofish: said it well above. There are reasonable concerns, but I'm not as concerned about an imperfect past as much as I am confident that ScottishFinnishRadish will be a net positive as an administrator in the future. SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
198. Support Leijurv (talk) 06:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
199. Support I find the opposition unpersuasive. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
200. Support. Reasons to oppose are pretty unconvincing. a!rado (C✙T) 07:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
201. Support. Has a clue. Curdle (talk) 11:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
202. Support. Per Yngvadottir et al. - Ryk72 ^talk 11:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
203. Why shouldn't I Support?? ─ The Aafī (talk) 12:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
204. Support. Candidate explained why they are asking for (or 'need') the tools. Nothing I've read makes me expect abuse of tools (nor expect SFR doing the admin-strut in discussions). ---Sluzzelin talk 15:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
205. Support looks OK and I'm not impressed with the oppose rationales. 29,000 edits over 18 months is easily enough to get the hang of how the place works, and accusations of sockpuppetry should come with hard evidence (the response in Q6 looks entirely plausible). Very few admin areas directly relate to high-quality content creation and the candidate clearly knows how to string a sentence together. A complaint that Content creation was never primary for this editor would probably decimate the admin corps if it was actually enforced. Hut 8.5 15:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
206. Support, seems to have some decent experience and some sensible thoughts about how they'd use the tools. While I understand some of the oppose rationales, the number that are primarily opposing based on two years and tens of thousands of edits being somehow insufficient experience really do concern me. I think we've seen quite enough to make an informed decision, and I'd say the balance swings heavily towards this being a net positive. ~ mazca ^talk 16:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
207. Support The opposes based on sockpuppetry concerns are unconvincing. Opposing for inexperience a candidate with over 20k edits and more than a year's tenure is a non-starter with me. In both good and bad ways, SFR's answers sound like the answers a current admin would give. Vadder (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

     Since it's becoming an issue, when I rejected the sockpuppetry concerns, I was referring to concerns that SFR has undisclosed prior editing. I'm also unswayed by the weight opposers are putting on isolated errors. Their sky-high standards are baffling. Vadder (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

208. Support per Floquenbeam. --Victor Trevor (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
209. Support So now if you don't get the hang of this place real quick, you get blocked for CIR, but if you do, you are forever at risk of failing a RFA because you might not be have been a new user? What a terrible precedent, if this RFA fails. Some of the other opposers raise some minor valid concerns, but we aren't electing a saint, here. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
210. Support. Does a lot of work around the wiki. Knows when to ask for advice. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
211. Support Are they the best person on here? No. But neither are the majority of us so get off it. I would view some of the opposes as more sincere and less robotic if they left out the low hanging fruit-grenades of tenure, content creation, and unofficial criteria. Anyone can stat-pad. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
212. I was thinking of sitting this out, but having asked two questions, I think I have some responsibility to finish off my evaluation particularly since this looks like it will go to a crat chat. In addition to my questions, I reviewed the candidates recent closures as archived at WP:ANRFC, their most substantial content contributions, their contributions to the Skepticism Arbitration case, and discussions linked by supporters and opposers. Having looked through the opposition and considered them quite seriously, I am not satisfied by arguments and believe the candidate will be a net positive with the tools.
     The opposition arguments I find most convincing are (in no particular order) those related to limited mainspace contribution, judgement, and temperment. SFR's contributions are good; he has two GAs and deservedly so. My understanding of the concerns regarding "namespace percentage" though is not that there is some threshold, but what it says about the candidate's experience and goals. The mix of namespaces results from SFR participating frequently on talk pages and noticeboards, with most of the mainspace contributions being a mix of anti-vandalism, fulfilling edit requests, and content creation. His contributions in all of these areas are good, but for someone with such a short tenure, it indicates someone who is primarily interested in the bureacratic side of the project which is hard to fully understand because our policies are rooted in the praxis of writing. This leads to judgement concerns. His answers to question 8, 9, 18, and 19 are sufficient, but compared to other answers they're quite short. In answers 26 and 29, SFR gives lengthy responses on his personal philosophy regarding BLP, protection, and revision deletion, topics also covered in Q8, 9, 18, and 19. The difference being that 8, 9, 18, and 19 asked for those to be applied to actual hypothetical situations, and while it's easy to have a philosophy, the real test is how that gets applied. In looking at his closures in the ANRFC archives, they also tend to be terse. For example, this May closure comes to a reasonable conclusion, but gives very little insight beyond that. There's a tacit application of WP:CONLEVEL but no mention of what "MOS/Guidelines" were relied upon or applicable (you need to read all the arguments to figure that out). He rightly points out that most determinations of "reasonable" will be case-by-case, but gives little guidance on how to make those kinds of decisions; my issue being that one of the guidelines cited and even quoted by participants gives a specific guideline for what that means. All of this, points to a temperment that others have described as "barrelling forward". SFR often makes good decisions and comes to the right conclusions, but part of collaboratively building an encyclopedia is documenting how and why things are done. Given the above, I think he focuses too much on coming up with the right answer, and loses sight of why we do things aprticular ways; it seems to me that the answers are an end in themselves rather than a means to an end. When given the freedom of stating his own opinions, free of a "right or wrong" answer like in questions 26 and 29, I see someone with really interesting insights and ideas. To wrap this all up, my point is this: while I would personally like to have seen the insight shown in 26 and 28 applied in earlier hypotheticals or in discussion closures, I do not believe these issues are sufficient to prevent promotion.
     Part of that is because, while those all raise doubts, there is ample evidence that these concerns are not catastrophic. His nominators are two editors I highly respect (one I respect so much that I asked him to nominate me for sysop), so I trust that they---having way more time than I have to review the candidate---see a clear net positive. We sometimes talk about how "per nom" isn't a strong rationale, but I disagree. Vanamonde has already explained his process for reviewing candidates, and El_C works in some of the most contentious areas of this project. That they found reason to not only support, but attach their names to the candidate's fate, is not something I take lightly. The points in my previous paragraph raise concerns, but the nominators' support reassures me. SFR's contributions to edit requests and project-space discussions is helpful. Perfect? Of course not, none of us are, but they are important aspects of the encyclopedia and if more tools will help in his maintenance work, then I think it's fine even if he doesn't fit the typical profile; running an encyclopedia takes all kinds. Would I like him to take more risks in applying policy and improve how he answers questions or closes discussions? Yes, but I'd rather start from too rigid application than too lax; hopefully, having it pointed out will help him improve regardless of tools. If this were a self-nomination or a request at PERM, I'd probably think otherwise, but because the nominators have independently reviewed the candidate and found him to be a net positive, I am willing to give more leniency and consider that, maybe since I'm digging through the mud, I only found things that were dirty.
     On-the-whole, I think SFR will use the tools with caution and in the best interests of the project. Like all of us, he will make mistakes, but nothing I've seen makes me think granting the tools will be harmful to the project. I have no concerns which prevent me from supporting. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
213. Support - I spent a lot of time thinking about this, and should probably expound much further than I'm going to, but it comes down to NOT (an intentional) JERK, HASCLUE, WILLING TO LEARN, ADMITS MISTAKES. If you haven't made mistakes here you don't care enough about this project. I commend to the candidate several of the opposes here, and because I have trust they will take them to heart I am offering my support of this candidacy. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
214. Support seems ok to me and will do fine. --Malerooster (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
215. Support – Should be a net benefit to the encyclopedia. EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
216. Support - Levelheaded, intelligent, has a Wiki-clue... good choice. Opposers utterly fail to convince me otherwise, to be as brief and civil as possible. Jusdafax (talk) 04:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
217. Support per 78.26 and Wugapodes. I must say that I find the amount of FUD and ABF among the opposition beyond acceptable, and this RFA (however it ends) should be preserved to demonstrate just how toxic it can be. No such user (talk) 07:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
218. I support for the same reasons as cogently presented by Wugapodes. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
219. Support I can acknowledge some of the concerns in the oppose category, such as lack of mainspace work (although some I believe are spurious - for example an editing time of 18 months would have been completely unexceptional a dozen years ago and the vast majority of those admins have not proved problematic), but in totality I find myself ending up on this side of the argument. Black Kite (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
220. Support He seems to be willing to work with others and admit mistakes. I understand the concerns of the opposers, but I also think it's good to have variation among admin skills to have broad perspectives and the ability to understand the needs of different sets of the Wikipedia community. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
221. Support The opposes have some valid rationales, but despite their concerns I can't see SFR being anything other than a good admin. Others have said it better before me; Levivich's first and second points, Yngvadottir, and Goldsztajn in particular express my views. Perfect4th (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
222. Support Good work on handling edit requests. Will make a good admin.- SUN EYE 1 15:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
223. The issues raised as reasons to oppose are either things with which I disagree, or to which SFR has provided adequate rebuttal, and thus I support. DS (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
224. Support I have read through the supports and opposes and I do see some merit to the opposition, as my own content creation bias leads me to be a little concerned with the relatively little content creation compared to other admins. But, I've seen SFR's name pop up on various talk pages, addressing edit requests and whatnot, and have never seen anything in their edits that caused me any concern. I don't have concern over the age of their account. I believe that this user "gets it" and can continue to learn and improve with the tools. If we're wrong, we can recall them. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
225. Support per WP:AGF. I may not agree with all, but I acknowledge the good faith rationales on both sides of this discussion. The good faith noms, the many questions asked and answered, the continued engagement, the good faith opposes, assist in helping the community better make their choice. User:Newyorkbrad's initial support, User:Wugapodes's lengthy jag, and User:Levivich's six points of re-affirmation convey ideas about this process to which I would largely subscribe. The candidate's RfA behavior does them much credit, noting the candidate's percentage of support has percolated in a very narrow range (between 75% and 70%) throughout this somewhat elongated process. Most RfA !voters came into this discussion understanding there was strong opposition already, yet while talk has been largely civil and on-topic, the candidate's behavior has been impeccable. I choose to trust the candidate. BusterD (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
226. I can't hope to beat Wug's in-depth analysis, which I quite agree with. But I will add that I have been always pleasantly pleased with SFR's contribs, their tireless work to answer edit requests (a thankless task!), and believe they will bring that energy to adminship. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
227. Support I was on the fence before reading through responses. The arguments in supports, like Wugapodes, were more convincing to me than those of the opposes. Equineducklings (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
228. Support. The candidates' responses to the concerns raised in the oppose !votes are thorough and convincing -- I don't see any reason to assume that they're hiding a secret prior account. The absurdly high standard demanded below (especially re content creation) is contributing to our lack of admins and admin candidates. This candidate seems trustworthy, willing to spend the time, and willing to learn from mistakes. agtx 20:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
229. Last minute support in solidarity Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
230. Support per many, especially Wugapodes. This is a net positive. GrammarDamner how are things? 21:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
231. Support. Not a big deal, end this living hell. J947 † ^edits 21:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
232. Support - I've read the ScottishFinnishRadish's answers to all the questions and reviewed some of their recent work and I think that they would make a good administrator. Their assistance in answering edit requests is also very helpful. I also read and understood all the viewpoints given by the opposing editors (several of them whom I trust and hold in high regard), I find some of the reasons to be quite important but I ultimately think that the editor will be a net positive. TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
233. Support seems reasonably sane and aware what they are getting into.©Geni (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
234. Support Per all the reasons above. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 00:11, 20 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, [13] 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)

   I can't recall recently seeing an editor with only 18% of their edits in mainspace - I can, straight away this reminded me of someone who hangs around the drama boards (5,440, 18.2%) compared to SFR's 5,278, 18.4% as linked. Longer tenure, though, for the former example (late 2018). Rocknrollmancer (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

   Mine is actually "worse" at 14% if you look at it, though mine is because I spent over 10k edits fixing issues a now indefed editor caused on talk pages years ago. It's always case-by-case with those stats, so even with my opposition below, I will say that just glancing at the pie chart isn't really appropriate. However, most of the comments mentioning that are also speaking to how they use their time outside of mainspace. Being a ~15%er myself, I would hope it stands out when I even point out there are concerns in their editing stats when you dig into them. KoA (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

   Whoever he is, he sounds like a brilliant and handsome editor. Levivich (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

   As Ealdgyth explains, the answer to Q27 is as big of a concern about how SFW would approach adminning as anything else that has surfaced. It's disappointing, as it was the one thing I could think to ask where exemplary clue could have caused me to change my mind here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

   Yup, Ealdgyth's correct that SFR misread the Malleus tragedy. As you suggested, probably due to him being unfamiliar with the beginning. In fairness those ridiculous allegations about him being misogynist started at least as far back as 2011. Several female editors stepped up to counter, as did folk who weren't even his friends or aligned with his values like the Colonel & myself (e.g this post pointing out his deep chivalry back in 2012.) It did no good, others kept on attacking him as a woman hater. It's intensely painful for most deep types to be portrayed as the opposite to what they are. Little wonder his wiki persona became so distorted that near the end it bore little relation to the once near universally admired Malleus, and became unresponsive to good advise.

   With M one can sort of understand how newcomers might form the wrong impression, as he was a little anti PC. A perhaps even more extreme example of wiki mud sticking occurred with Ironholds, an editor progressive almost to the point of being a SJW. But when an unwise off wiki joke got took out of context to portray him as misogynist, it did him no good that multiple women called that "absurd", including even one of the most progressive & non-honeybadger female admins on the site. White knights kept recycling the attack years after & Ironholds became totally jaded about Wikipedia.

   The point is not that folk should be too hesitant to call out perceived misogyny of course. It's the hyper critical outlook so many share on all sorts of perceived flaws, which leads to countless loss of quality editors due to unwarranted witchhunting & permabanning. I find it cruel that the project lets people Labour for a decade or more, growing roots and making wikipedia their digital home. Being made to feel welcome until suddenly they're not. Being a prolific creator of beautifully written FAs, or even a recipient of one of the worlds most prestigious Maths prizes (as with Mathsci) isn't enough to save them. The encyclopaedia anyone can edit my arse! Some point out there are thousands that successfully edit for years without a single sanction. True, but they total less than 1% of the 44+ million accounts that have registered here. It now takes admins less than 6 months to issue more indeffs than our total number of active editors - granted, many of those indeffs are likely for socks, but still. All that said, even as a perhaps excessively pro lenient editor, I suspect it would be disastrous if admins felt they had to research the deep story for every situation before taking action. And the reason why SFR's misread of the Malleus saga hasnt made me withdraw support, is that at least its clear he's not a white knight, per making the 'ScottishFinishBitch' joke. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

   It's always a pleasure to read your ponderings, FeydHuxtable. It's not that I expected a relative newcomer to have absorbed all that happened as we lost Malleus in what is now a piece of Wikipedia's ancient history; it's that a simple display of humanity/insight/humility might have swayed me completely, or at least softened my strong oppose. Anyone who has read any bit of the Malleus saga has to have seen that Malleus was respected, else the saga would never have ensued. A good answer would have been something like, "it's not possible for someone at this stage to understand the entire saga, but I can see that many editors respected him, so there must have been a person behind that editor name that I can't know today, but the lesson in how I will admin wrt whatever it was that happened to Malleus/Eric is that I will always remember that there's a real person behind every account, possibly details I'm not aware of, and I will strive to do my best to understand a situation, and not opine or take admin action if I am not absolutely certain I have investigated fully and have the whole story". There's a quality of humble humanity in the answers to questions from the kinds of candidates I nominate that is the essence of a character that can't be missed, and can't be feigned, and makes their RFAs a joy; it's natural, unmistakeable, and shines in its simplicity. Instead, SFR quickly glossed (SFR could have taken time to ponder), and that confirms the barreling ahead concern. I respect your position; unfortunately, the answer served to confirm my initial impression rather than give a hint of the kind of character I seek in admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

   Likewise Sandy. It's a huge ask to strive for absolute certainty, though Im sure you didnt mean that literally. Agree with everything else. Only WP:Ilikehim reasons now prevent me withdrawing support. I very much hope the radish takes on board the concerns about barrelling ahead with little considered strong opinions. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

   Termperament concerns now as well. The candidate has demonstrated, on this very page, my precise concern about what kind of admin they would be, the very kind I was concerned about (as we hadn't seen their engagement under fire), and a temperament that is not suited to adminship. Not having had enough engagement in the trenches, and not knowing how they would react in difficult circumstances and contentious article building was an initial concern; true engagement "at the coal face" is very different from building an article about a long-deceased uncontroversial person (the two GAs), and we've now seen on this page that SFR would be the type of admin to add fuel to the fire. It does not matter how badly "the other guy" behaves, adding fuel to the fire is never a good idea and is suggestive of the kind of adminning that usually leads places like ANI and ArbCom. Not only did SFR do that as recently as August of this year, SFR justifies that behavior on this page rather than indicating they might have reacted more calmly. We have enough cowboy admins already who get away with this behavior because of their tenure (and which reminds of the situations so many content editors object to). No matter the circumstance, we don't need another admin who responds to editors in the way SFR did here, with "cut that shit out" and this is "bullshit". I'm not averse to bad language; I'm averse to throwing fuel on a fire and not being able to calmly explain situations without displaying a temper tantrum. And not having the wherewithal to know not to justify that in an RFA. My concerns about a person seeking the tools from the outset is reinforced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 19 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 [14][15]. 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 [[16]], 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)

   Yeah, if it needs to be redundantly clear, I was not involved in that dispute at all when I went to SFR's talk page, and aside from maybe a stray noticeboard comment in a simiar vein, wasn't afterwards either. Literally someone uninvolved warning SFR about their behavior. KoA (talk) 14:31, 16 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 [17], 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)

    I remain here even though there are now some thoughtful responses in the support section (especially Wugapodes'). But I think it's worth noting, to the extent that we're still pretending that RfA is a consensus-building discussion and not a vote, that a lot of supporters are responding to a strawman oppose arguments. By my count less than five of the current 81 opposers give lack of experience as a primary reason for opposing. For the vast majority, the problem isn't how long SFR has been here, it's what he's been doing in that time. Similarly, literally nobody is saying that SFR is a sockpuppet because he figured out how to make wikilinks in his first edits. It's the areas he began contributing in and his apparently extensive prior knowledge of our norms and practices that some find suspicious. He has given an explanation for this, yes, but less than a year after we almost gave an LTA the mop, are we really going to mock people for being cautious? – Joe (talk) 10:56, 19 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)

    I will just add that while I find direct suspicions of socking to be a bit OTT, the extroadinary knowlege of Wikipedia processes brought from day one do give me pause. One could be a very regular editor for years and still not have achieved such a level of competency, and I don't belive it can be gained from simply lurking or years of editing as an IP - which would normally be perfectly acceptable. Maybe there has been a RTV. But nevertheless, it's a bit careless to demontrate such knowledge without considering the concerns it would raise at a RfA. Hence another reason that convinces me that the community should wait before according the mop. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC).

    Kudpung, I cannot believe you have fully thought through this last comment. Are you seriously suggesting he should have pretended not to know what he did? How would that be beneficial to the encyclopedia? And how would it make him better qualified for RFA? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

    Vanamonde93, what a strange thing to say. I didn't suggest anything of the sort and I'm surprised that an admin would deliberately misunderstand. The only formal qualification for RfA is having an account on Wikipedia. Whether the community will see fit to qualify the candidate for the mop is another matter. Like 74 other opposers I have simply stated my reasons for thinking 'not yet', but that if this RfA should fail, I would seriously consider supporting in 12 months hence. What's wrong with that? (reply not required). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

    @Kudpung: I think the sentence in question is, But nevertheless, it's a bit careless to demontrate such knowledge without considering the concerns it would raise at a RfA. I see two possible interpretations. (1) "ScottishFinnishRadish should have hidden their true knowledge in order to avoid concerns at an RfA." (2) "It would be careless for a vanished user to demonstrate their true knowledge, so it's less likely that ScottishFinnishRadish has used the right to vanish." I believe Vanamonde93 thinks you meant (1). Perhaps you'd like to disambiguate. — Bilorv (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

    @Kudpung: "it's a bit careless to demontrate such knowledge" is logically equivalent to "If he were more careful he would hide his knowledge}}. If that's not what you meant, you should clarify; and I really don't see why you need insinuate that I'm misunderstanding on purpose. Bilorv offers a generous alternative interpretation, but that interpretation ought to weaken opposition to the candidate, not strengthen it, as you've implied. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

    The sentence in plain British English is But nevertheless, it's a bit careless to demontrate such knowledge without considering the concerns it would raise at a RfA. and needs no disambiguation. To parse it and take it out of context to second guess I meant anything else is disingenuous. If you're going to badger all the other 78 oppsers, I suggest you drop this and start now before the the RfA closes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:55, 19 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)

    @Athaenara: I think your first point (about previous accounts) is answered in Question 6. Gronk Oz (talk) 04:44, 16 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)

    I suppose I should have been more clear: I believe that, for reasons outlined in WP:DENY, revert-wars with vandals in general should be avoided, unless there are good reasons to immediately rollback the disruption. Yes, disruption must be reverted, but surely in most cases the reverts can wait till an admin blocks the account? It's a waste of time and energy to feed the troll by revert-warring, especially outside of mainspace. JavaHurricane 01:58, 17 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)

    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)

    Are you sure that you've read the answer to Q6? JBL (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

    Ok − you're right. I've struck my !vote. Maproom (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

56. Oppose - Largely along the lines of Hog Farm and Joe's rationales. GAB^gab 00:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
57. Oppose - although SFR has taken two articles to GA, they have only created one article on their own, and spend way too much time away from article space. They might, in the future, be a good candidate for the mop, but they need to learn content creation first. GregJackP Boomer! 07:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

    Oppose. Although I don't usually make comments at RFAs, I take an in-depth look at each and every one. Most of them go in the direction that I think they should go, without my help. This one is an exception. A couple of days ago, I saw the opposes presented by User:KoA and User:Clayoquot and the reasons presented by each persuaded me that I would prefer that the admin bit not be offered to the candidate. I think their arguments against promotion are persuasive, but at this point, the general consensus seems to be divided, so I would like to step up and add my voice to those who regretfully would not like to see the candidate promoted. RecycledPixels (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

    Striking oppose. Clayoquot has withdrawn their opposition and I re-reviewed the discussions about that incident that was being referenced and don't feel strong enough to oppose based upon that. That left KoA's opposition. Ultimately, the worst thing that can be said about that discussion was that the candidate was overconfident that they were right, and dismissive of the objections raised by two other editors. However, with the benefit of hindsight, you can see that the addition of the material that was being battled over was ultimately determined to violate BLP. And the removal of the material does not give any indication that the material the candidate was repeatedly removing was necessarily about their own opinion of the way things ought to be, merely that the material shouldn't be re-added while a BLP discussion was going on. So on that basis, I strike my previous opposition. RecycledPixels (talk) 07:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

    67% main+talk = 33% away from article space. I'm surprised you think that's too much time. What percentage is not too much? Levivich (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

58. Oppose I was going to sit this one out, as I basically was torn, until the stuff about Eric/Malleus was brought up. On the plus side, I appreciate SFR's willingness to go to bat for good sourcing (through the efforts to reign in the use of subpar sources such as Skeptical Inquirer) and for high BLP standards (through the Skeptical Inquirer and the Ariel Fernandez dust-up). On the other hand, I find their content engagement pretty lacking - especially when combined with their shortish tenure here. Like others, I've definitely gotten the vibe of "wants to be an admin since they registered". But it was the answer to question 27 that landed me here. The glib answer putting pretty much all the onus on Eric for the issues is a mis-read of the situation and one reason why the lack of content creation is so concerning. As a woman, and as someone involved with Eric's problems, you cannot just distill it down to "some people are just not suited for wikipedia" nor was he the caricature that his detractors made him out to be. If this is how SFR is going to approach future conflicts - i.e. superficially - then I don't trust them with the tools. To be clear for the 'crats - I don't give a crap about whether or not SFR was a restart of an old account, is a sock of someone, or any of that stuff - I am basing this oppose on their lack of content engagement combined with a short tenure as well as a lack of trust in their ability to investigate situations and come to judgements about them. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
59. Oppose. I want to be clear-- I don't think SFR is a sock, and my main reasons for opposing are not even linked to that situation, hat-collecting tendencies, or length of tenure. Rather, the response to criticism/blocks about edit warring and biting newcomers is what concerns me. I would want to see an administrator who is more willing to accept that they may have been in the wrong. While content creation would help a future RFA greatly, I hope to also see improvements in judgement/temper. Best wishes, Gilded Snail (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

    I could be wrong, but I don't thunk anyone is claiming that SFR is a sock, which implies that a previous account continued to edit after a new account was created, rather that SFR may have had a previous account, and that if they did, the behavior and record of the account is fair game for consideration at RfA -- plus the issue of dissembling if they did have a previous account and are denying it now. I have no idea if they did or didn't, and my oppose !vote is not based on any such suspicion, but I do think that concerns about SFR appearing fully-formed, like Venus Athena bursting out of the head of Zeus, are a valid reason to oppose, if that's how the voter see it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

    Got my goddesses mixed up. Thanks to Clovermoss. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

60. Oppose - first off, I dont find anything particularly fishy about the account and the explanations, as my own path into learning about the dark side of WP (ANI and so on) followed a similar trajectory. If you just read some of our controversial topics you will quickly find a npov dispute notice directing you to a talk page, where you will start to learn how the sausage is made. And if youre even a little bit curious it is a hop skip and a jump away from reading entire AC cases and ANI archives. I think I read WP:ARBPIA before I made my first edit here and I knew most of the regular editors and admins, all before I knew how to use a citation template. So that isnt what lands me here, what brings me to the oppose section is along the same lines as Ealdgyth. Im not really a fan of the group that promotes superficial civility over the purpose of this place. And I think we need admins that actually examine a conflict through the lens of what is best for the encyclopedia, not who said some four letter word one too many times. And the answers above dont give me confidence that this would be the former and not the latter kind of admin. nableezy - 15:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

    I think youre going to pass, and I wish you good luck, but I hope you take on board the critique on not being superficial in your analysis of situations, be they edit-requests or personal disputes between editors. nableezy - 21:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

61. Oppose - His answers to my concerns was not convincing. It is better for him to gain more experience. --Ruwaym (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
62. Oppose - Sorry, but I am regretfully opposing at this time. I think the essay Wikipedia:Not quite yet applies in this case. I think SFR is a good editor but in my opinion more mainspace edits, more content creation is needful and the editor can then revisit RFA sometime in the future. I don't care all that much about FA/FL credits but the fact that they have only created one article and worked on 2 GAs does concern me. Shearonink (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

    Out of curiosity, how many GAs does the median admin have? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

    Not really a fair comparison, since adminning takes up a lot of time, I would think. You might ask how many GAs did the median admin have at the time of their successful RfA? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

    (General comment, not specifically directed at Beyond My Ken) Can't speak for anyone else, but I had none. Still have none, and probably never will; I don't care enough about Wikipedia's article rating system to want to bother with it, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. For whatever reason, content creation was never an issue at my RfA. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

    Not just you. The most-supported RfA candidate of all time had no GAs. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

    Other candidates (likely with differing strengths and weaknesses and editing approaches and history) aren't under consideration here; this candidate was presented at RFA as having a solid portfolio of content work to his name. An RFA candidate need not have GAs, FAs, DYKs or any other article history milestone (it's quite possible, indeed easy, to demonstrate a solid editing portfolio without any of those), but if they are presented for RFA as a content editor, the expectation is that is true. This is what the nomination looked like when the candidate accepted it (candidates have ample opportunity to adjust inaccuracies in nom statements). Opposers are acting reasonably to notice that the nomination statement does not align with the editing history, and at least, no evidence of a "solid portfolio of content work" has been presented. Two short GAs that most content editors could turn out in a under a day do not a "portfolio" make. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

    There are some admins who, in my opinion, have no (or next to no) content creation experience at all, have been admins for years and years and years, and it shows in their constant appearance of biting the newbies. However, they have friends on here, so they'll never get desysopped, and if I complain I'll probably get accused of personally attacking someone. So I ignore them. In my view, SFR is nowhere near that level. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

63. Oppose. I've thought about this carefully over the past few days and am ending up here. I have two main concerns. First regarding content; I checked the candidate's last 500 non-minor edits to mainspace, which go back to 21 June, and found just 5 that were content building (two added sources, two substantive edits to the lead, and one creation of a redirect). Coupled with the relatively short tenure, I just don't feel that the candidate has yet amassed enough experience with the basic purpose here of building an encyclopedia. Second, I share concerns that the editor's temperament is not a good fit with adminship, particularly per specific issues raised by KoA and Clayoquot, but also broadly per Joe Roe, JoJo Anthrax and Ealdgyth, and relating to the Skepticism arbitration case. For clarity, I'm not swayed by the putative previous account issue; I cannot see how any editor can be expected to prove the non-existence of prior accounts. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
64. Oppose - This took me a very long time to weigh in on SFR. The concerns about his account being a sock or that this isn't his first account have been raised before this RfA and there was no evidence, just lots of speculation. His account only being 18-months old isn't a problem either, some people 'get it' sooner. Though only creating a couple main space articles makes me think that we are lowering our standards, focusing on policing, reverting, talk page conversations and admin areas. To write an article is an unique skill that only two can't fulfill. How can you relate to new editors trying to create when you haven't honed that skill yet? I've had dozens of interactions with SFR over the last year where he actually took sides with some of the accounts that were just the worst to me. When I see that those same accounts are some of the ones voting support very loudly I am even more wary. His involvement in the Fringe discussions was odd and opinionated when it felt like he didn't understand the rules of Fringe at all. He is quick to jump into drama and I still don't understand why when his account was only months old he felt that he needed to interject into discussions (heated ones) when he had not participated in the areas of Fringe before. I would like to see more admins that are kind and patient with newer editors, that help them learn to create articles, not quick to revert and insert their opinion. I vote oppose per the reasons of @Johnuniq:, @JoJo Anthrax:, @Athaenara: and @Tryptofish:. Sgerbic (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
65. Oppose - User misrepresents what other editors say, uses bad logic to justify actions, and does not retract that bad logic when it is pointed out. See the discussion here where I had to ask them Wikipedia editors attributing a statement to a source that does not justify using it is now a reason to call the source unreliable? I don't think a position of power for this person would be a good idea. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

    I linked a later version because I wanted to show not only the bad logic itself but the non-event of not retracting it afterwards. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

    The diff linked here is not by SFR, but by another editor. It criticizes Hob Gadling for incivility, which refers to this and this. The only thing SFR himself had to say about it was this, a rightful request for Hob to make less personal attacks. Calling anything one disagrees with 'bad logic' (as a generalizing judgement of the editor's underlying capabilities rather than of a particular point they made) is also uncivil, by the way. Opposing an RfA because one disagrees on content and has a hard time to stay civil about it is not a good look. Please note that other editors who equally disagree with SFR on the very same content, such as this one, were very happy to support this RfA. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

    not by SFR, but by another editor That is why I explained I linked a later version because.

    Then it's a good thing that Calling anything one disagrees with 'bad logic' is not what I did. I called bad logic "bad logic". The problem is also not that I "disagree with" him. All this is beside the point. The point is not admitting mistakes, and using an edit which misquotes a source as a reason for calling that source unreliable is clearly a mistake. When that happens, one should retract the mistake. As contrast, see this recent edit by User:Brian Josephson. I disagree heartily with Brian Josephson, but when he noticed that his reasoning was not optimal, he deleted it. I would support Brian Josephson's request for adminship, if he were interested in such things. But SFR has a different mindset. The incident I linked is not the only one where he showed that sort of behaviour. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

    Hob Gadling, User:Ixtal/Admit that when other editors disagree with you it does not mean they are being willfully and maliciously ignorant. There's no point in you holding on to the disagreements that happened during the ARBSCE case. Plenty of other parties have learned to see good qualities in those we disagreed with back then. A disagreement you had with SFR and I half a year ago is not the end of the world just because you didn't get your way, and I'd hoped you had seen the improvements SFR and I have made since the arbcom case occurred (e.g. SFR talking from time to time w/ Sgerbic or me getting involved with DRN to help prevent disputes from blowing up like the arbsce one did as well as participating in medrs threads productively w/ Roxy and Bon Courage). Mentioning the dispute over and over is just a massive stop sign that wastes everyone's time and doesn't move the discussion in a productive manner. Let it go. The rest of us have mostly moved on. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 21:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

    I and others have NOT moved on A. C. Santacruz/Ixtal! It is still a very painful wound. SFR was one of the participants along with yourself that threw everything you could at me and others trying to get something to stick, which it did not. Months wasted, tens of thousands of words in attack, no, we have not forgotten or moved on. SFR talking to me "from time to time" is what? Some kind of game in order for him to rebuild his reputation and hope that I won't come out against him during a RfA? The bullies DO NOT get to say "it's time to move on". If he wants to rebuild trust and show he has changed, then he needs to do so and not whatever this checklist of redemption is that seems to be happening now. I would appreciate it as I have said before, if you are going to mention me, then tag me so I don't come across these conversations by accident. Sgerbic (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

    when other editors disagree with you What is it with you people? Apaugasma assumed the same thing, that the problem is "disagreement". I already explained how that is not the problem and what the actual problem is, and it seems it did not help. When Apausgasma tries to describe a skeptic's reasoning, they always fail miserably: the skeptic always comes over as a simpleton made of cardboard. You seem to be the same. I am coming to think that you people and skeptics is like Thomas Nagel and bats: We are just far too different, and it makes no sense for you to talk about how we think. Let's stop this; I am against the adminship, and that is how it is, although it probably won't make a difference. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

    I'm a skeptic myself, so that's not it. Problematic is rather the 'you people' personalizing [18] [19] and the undue inferences about other editors' capacity to think straight. A !vote based on an unduly generalizing and therefore uncivil claim of 'uses bad logic to justify actions' should carry very little weight. Whatever the merits of your specific argument in the content dispute you link to, it was overshadowed at the time by your aggressive tone, so the fact that nobody at the time said 'you know what Hob, I think you're right' is entirely due to yourself. Meanwhile, no one denied that your point was valid. There is no insistence on or chronic recourse to 'bad logic' here (which would be a concern for a potential admin), just one argument by SFR in a content dispute that may have been a bit weak, met by a personal attack from you, and a disengagement on SFR's part. Walking away from a personalizing content dispute like that is a good characteristic for a potential admin. You're of course right that you're entitled to your oppose; I'm primarily writing this to make the background clear to other editors reading this RfA. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

    Whatever you choose to call yourself, the Thomas Nagel comparison is apt. I say one thing, you always - always! behave as if I had said another thing. Talking to you, or SFR, or User:Ixtal, is partly like talking to wall, partly like talking to a distorting mirror. The "no one denied that your point was valid" gambit just does not fly. It is basic courtesy to acknowledge when one has made a mistake. That applies doubly when that acknowledgement is asked for, even if it is painful. Maybe the influence of Donald Trump, who always counterattacks instead of admitting mistakes, has destroyed that; he seems to be the generally accepted role model now.

    User:Levivich is another one who replaces what people say by their own imagination. "Revenge oppose"? Why do I even use reasoning when people only perceive one or two of the words? It is a pattern with SFR not to admit mistakes... oh, I will stop now, it will not penetrate your skulls anyway. You will only register "Hob said something against what I said. Must be wrong. I'll use some boilerplate response."

    Another thing. My question "Are you really here to build an encyclopedia" was not a personal attack. I explained that back then... oh right, you do not listen to explanations. Forget it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

66. Oppose per JoJo Anthrax and HogFarm - Tweedle (talk) 09:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
67. Oppose - like others, I've sat on the fence for some time as I really don't like to be in opposition, it causes a lot of stress for a fellow editor, and SFR seems like a good person who's committed to the project. But really, with some regret, my thoughts are the same as Espresso Addict above and others. The longevity and the possibility of socking aren't really an issue, at least unless its proven. But the fact that they haven't engaged in content creation in a very serious way (bar the two GAs, which as SandyGeorgia says above, are on the short side and not indicative of wider experience in life at the coal face). This is something I say across the board at RFAs - Wikipedia is first-and-foremost an encyclopaedia, and our purpose here is to produce quality articles; everything else is secondary. And a potential admin needs to properly understand the full lifecycle of being a content creator before they take up the mop, even if their ultimate joy comes more from administrative tasks than writing. I also agree with EA that SFR's civility could be improved (one of the core tenets of WP:ADMINCOND). Being proven right isn't a reason to glibly dismiss people's concerns about your actions, as I feel may have happened at the 3RR discussion mentioned above. None of this is in any way set in stone, and as much as RFA is a "stressful experience", I hope (if the RFA doesn't succeed) that SFR will spend some time over the next six months to a year really addressing the things mentioned in the opposes here, such that I would have no hesitation to support. Devote yourself to content for a period of time alongside adminny things and we can get there. Please don't consider this a one-time shot. Conversely, if the RFA is successful then I will of course congratulate SFR and welcome them to the corps, but I would also hope they will still take the feedback on board, because we're all on a learning curve here, however long we've been on-wiki!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
68. Oppose, essentially per Spicy and JavaHurricane. Building on Java's point, this from three weeks ago particularly concerns me – revertwarring with an LTA is something to be avoided (especially when it's obvious that it's only a matter of time until the user is blocked). Every edit to a user talk page generates a notif, and given that the content on the page wasn't particularly egregious, I think this was the wrong call, and even more so from someone who wants to be an antivandalism admin. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 13:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
69. Oppose per JavaHurricane. Mentioned concerns is looks valid to me, best luck for future. —MdsShakil (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
70. Oppose Strong oppose (explanation below) (ultimately switched from neutral) As mentioned in my neutral retraction, there are a number of things SFR has done that I would have done differently, but that were not bad enough or not in the best interests of the project enough to push me into oppose. After considering other elements brought up here, including Ealdgyth and Giraffer's opposes, I feel I must oppose. It isn't just that SFR revert warred with Aziz al-Abub on User talk:חוקרת. SFR did report the account to AIV after the first revert [20], but kept right on revert warring with Aziz al-Abub after the report, and not just on the aforementioned talk page. It happened at least 13 times in a number of places after that (examples [21][22][23]). This is really feeding the troll, and if I might speculate probably delighted the LTA. Further, doing so on multiple people's talk pages was really out of line. Waiting the 10 minutes it took for the LTA to be blocked, and THEN undo the LTA's edits is what should have happened. Lighting up other people's talk pages with an ongoing revert war, even if technically correct by WP:3RRNO, was poor judgment. This having happened within the last few weeks is troubling, and pertinent to this RfA. Being "right" doesn't mean it's a good idea to edit war with an LTA who very likely wants an edit war, as it serves their purpose of disrupting the project. This failure combined with other borderline cases mentioned above in other opposes leaves me now as oppose. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

    "Oppose" vs. "Strong Oppose" is meaningless. Nevertheless, I wanted to amend my !vote here. SFR was called out for their comments in Bill Williams' 13:20, 19 September 2022 !vote. SFR responded with this regarding their post on Bill Williams' talk page. Nothing merits that response. Wikipedia:Civility is core policy, and needs to be abided by. Ignoring it in an attempt to buttress a position against something is flat wrong, and self defeating. This incident, happening less than one month ago, rather clearly demonstrates a demeanor that is wholly incompatible with being an administrator. Such a reaction to Bill Williams goes directly against WP:ADMINCOND. Everybody makes mistakes. This is clearly one. But, it's not by any means the only case of poor judgment made by the candidate. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

71. Oppose for relative lack of mainspace work, and too much of a focus on dramaboards. Others above have already covered this in detail, so I'm not going to repeat it all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
72. Oppose - I've seen a lot of rash judgements, likely due to inexperience. Nice enough sort, most of the time, but I'm not convinced their temperament is what we want for admin, too quick to judge situations, etc. I could tell 6 months ago they were working towards an RfA, which is fine, but they aren't ready for it yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
73. Oppose per SMcCandlish. starship.paint (exalt) 03:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
74. Oppose (moved from neutral) per SandyGeorgia. I am not convinced the editor did not previously edit using an undisclosed account. Their answer to Q6 just does not add up to me at all. Polyamorph (talk) 09:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
75. oppose I rarely oppose in RfAs. The candidate has very low contribution in mainspace. I'm not talking about percentage. Most of their edits are reverts, or maintenance. I don't expect GAs or FAs, but I do expect substantial well sourced content additions. What I wanted to say further, has already been said by Amakuru, Hammersoft, Espressoaddict, and SandyGeorgia. I don't see point in repeating that, so "per them". —usernamekiran (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

    also per Sdrqaz below. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

    @Usernamekiran: the candidate has written two GAs from scratch or thereabouts, Rosetta Lawson and Jesse Lawson. Of the 5,000 edits in mainspace, a good proportion are reverts, yes, but there are content additions and implementations of edit requests (as well as rejections in talk page edits)—both forms of content work. — Bilorv (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

    I require that an admin candidate have at least 1 FA or 2 GAs before I'll even consider supporting them getting the mop. SFR has the GAs, but I'm also opposing the nomination, for much the same reason as @Usernamekiran: is opposing. Besides, Usernamekiran doesn't owe you an explanation. GregJackP Boomer! 17:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

    @GregJackP: Bilorv didn't demand any explanation from Kiran. Mind you this is a discussion, not a vote, so even if he did ask Kiran for an explanation, that wouldn't be an unreasonable request. —VersaceSpace 🌃 17:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

    update: I apologise for my vague comment. What I wanted to say was "I don't expect multiple GAs or FAs". I am not denying the content work, I am saying it is not enough in the current form. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

    @VersaceSpace: - if the comment to Usernamekiran wasn't for an explanation, then what was it for, harassment? Second, I'm far more aware of what Wikipedia procedures are, and what they are not, than you. You see, the only people you can harass badger annoy post questions or comments on, is those who have opposed the nomination. If someone ask similar questions to those who support, they get threatened with ANI or admin action. GregJackP Boomer! 20:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

    @GregJackP: what are you talking about..? Bilorv didn't demand anything from Kiran, he simply disagreed with a point that was made, which is perfectly acceptable in a discussion. That you (think you) know more about about the procedures here is irrelevant. I couldn't care less either. Obviously 'oppose' votes will face additional scrutiny because concerns are raised in those, concerns in an RfA !vote are usually followed by a dialogue. And nobody's threatening an editor who validly rebuts a support vote, I challenge you to show me an instance of this happening. —VersaceSpace 🌃 20:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

    [24] and [25] GregJackP Boomer! 04:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

    And here's where an admin threatened to block me because he disagreed with my questioning supporters at an RfA. [26] This will be my last reply unless you post something, that in my sole opinion, is relevant. GregJackP Boomer! 04:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

    That's three years ago from someone who is no longer an active editor. What does that have to do with the price of tea in china? Star Mississippi 15:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

    @GregJackP: that is a pretty gross mischaracterization of those edits, some of which were seven years ago. Not a single one of those says anything direct about blocking you. Some of the things you were doing that resulted in those comments did merit a warning. I have a high amount of faith in DESiegel, Worm That Turned, and Kudpung to represent situations accurately, and I can't see that they've done otherwise, so that's pretty disappointing from an editor with 15 years tenure. —VersaceSpace 🌃 19:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

76. Oppose I do not recall positive interactions with the editor. In addition majority of edits are not in main space and their only article contribution is Shit flow diagram. Lightburst (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

    @Lightburst - what do you mean their "only article contribution is Shit flow diagram"? It's the only article they literally created, but the Jesse Lawson Good Article, for example, they created 92.5% of its 14500 characters. For Rosetta Lawson, it's about 90%. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

77. Oppose With another year of solid editing, I'd be supporting, a tad too early. Selfstudier (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
78. Oppose I don't require specifc FA/GA, but would like a greater proportion of focus on content Bumbubookworm (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
79. Oppose Namespace totals do not reflect the work they plan to do with adminship. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 04:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
80. Oppose with some regret and with the hope that the candidate might be ready given another year of experience. My thoughts are well summarised by Espresso Addict above. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
81. Oppose. Unfortunately I find myself here again. BLP revision deletion, which SFR plans to make one of the main parts of his work, is one of the functions for which I want to have very high trust in the admin’s judgement. Non-admins cannot check whether BLP revdeletions have been done poorly, and it is difficult for any admin to make a deleted revision visible again if another admin has said it contains a BLP violation.

    Overuse of revision deletion can be a big problem. Overuse erodes public trust in Wikipedia’s transparency, it complicates dispute resolution, it makes it more difficult for non-admins to identify abusive editors, and it can destroy good content along with bad. If the subject of the article is contentious and the admin is already perceived as being biased in favour of the subject, it will probably increase tensions.

    In his answer to question 29, SFR shows little awareness of these issues. He states that he would delete this revision of an article he has substantively edited, and is in a topic area that was the subject of a recent Arbcom case. Had he done a revision deletion on this article it would likely have further increased tensions and demoralized editors; SFR seems to be either unaware or unstopped by this.

    SFR’s answer also indicates to me that he would revdelete significantly more than most other admins would. Using sexual orientation as an insult is bog-standard vandalism 99% of the time. Just revert it! The idea of revdeleting talk pages just because they contain something like this edit request with three links to YouTube is way overboard. The YouTube links show KSI laughing at an absolutely trivial controversy and telling his fans they have too much time on their hands. Even calling the edit requests “shit” as SFR did in his edit summary was an overreaction. There were other similar edit requests for this article that other other experienced editors dealt with using our customary dry, polite, and boring language, which is a much more effective way of handling disruption. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

    I've looked into the incident of what SFR calls "harassment" and "shit", but not only do I not see harassment; I also think the edit request should have been partially accepted: The article shouldn't say anything about the controversy per se, but a number should have been changed in the infobox. I've started a talk page discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:KSI#WP:ABOUTSELF_sourcing_for_fact_in_infobox. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 11:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

    Another edit request that SFR calls "fatneek shit" in Q29 is neither shit nor harassment. "Fatneek" is sourceable to the Rice University Neologisms Database. "The Nightmare" appears to be a widely-used nickname for KSI as a boxer. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

82. Oppose. I am concerned about SFR potentially using admin rights to change/hide articles they are already involved in. Temperment is too emotive for an admin, perhaps WP:TOOSOON WP:NOTNOW to to accurately tell. Loopy30 (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC) re-edited Loopy30 (talk) 15:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

    WP:TOOSOON is an essay about the suitability of a standalone article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

    I guess Loopy30 meant to refer to WP:NOTNOW. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

83. Oppose I do not think 1.5 years experience is enough to be nominated, and having the vast majority of edits on talk pages is not a good sign, as it means less experience editing. Also, I do not think they have the tempermant necessary to be an admin, as once during a dispute I had with another editer, ScottishFinnishRaddish told me to "cut that shit out," "you should be ashamed," and stated that my "defense is bullshit" all in a single comment on my talk page. Although the issue was serious, I resolved it with the editor due to me misunderstanding what they had said, what their userbox said, and how WP guidelines worked, so ScottishFinnishRaddish ranting on my talk page did not benefit anyone and only increased tensions. Bill Williams 13:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

    I've held off on responding to opposes, but the end is near, and I'm sure there won't be a question regarding this. This is the talk page discussion and the warning was in response to this, Where Bill Williams said of another editor The only one endorsing war crimes is the Hezbollah supporter who enjoys watching terrorists bomb innocent people. If that doesn't merit this response, I don't know what would. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

84. Oppose:Not just yet: as indicated by review of several responses to new and potential editors, as mentioned by others above. We are still trying to be civil and hang on to new editors, right? He has aclue about a lot, and shows some chops, but I think some things need to yet be learned by this candidate. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 17:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
85. Oppose: I've seen him around, nice guy, speaks his mind directly; but I don't think that is enough to become an admin these days. So I could just say "too soon", but I'll add in "per Sandy" and WPO - it's just a matter of judgement - maybe he'll mature a bit. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
86. Oppose:Not just yet Constant314 (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
87. Oppose - I've been contemplating whether to participate in this RfA at all for much the same reasons at Ritchie. The only experience I have with the candidate is in coming across their answering edit-requests. What I have seen there does not instill confidence and is the sole reason for my oppose. I cannot link to the article, because I cannot recall which article it was at and I didn't need to address it as it had already been handled by another editor. The case was thus: an editor requested a minor correction to an article that was erroneously using single case when the source text had clear plural marking. It needs to be noted that the source text was in an extinct language that is read by few and spoken by none. SFR rejected the edit request because, and this boggles my mind, the requestor had not provided a reliable source to support the change. You do not need to provide a reliable source to fix a spelling error. Consequently, I have a mild sense of dread anytime I see SFR on my watchlist because of edit-request responses like that. Hence, I oppose the nomination.
    There is, however, another comment to be placed alongside this. I cannot but hope that the bureaucrat that closes this RfA, outright passes the candidate. This RfA has three types of opposes in it. Those with legitimate concerns, those with 'weak' concerns, and those with illegitimate concerns. There is a not insubstantial proportionate of the last, which ought be outright dismissed. Evidence free accusations of illegitimiate sockpuppetry (for example) should be dispensed with, without any consideration. These are bad faith opposes. By ignoring such opposes, the RfA is removed from within discretionary range. Hence, it ought be summarily passed.
    The other type, 'weak' concerns are split between 'good faith but misguided' and 'good faith but unpopular', and need be handled differently. For one example, much has been said about percentages and totals, often conflating the two. You cannot determine whether an editor is experienced in any section of the encyclopedia solely by looking at the percentage of contributions in that area. 1% of 1 million edits is 10,000. That's a metric ton of edits, even if so low in percent. Here we have an editor with two GAs and 5,000+ mainspace edits. It is misguided to suggest that they are 'inexperienced' in content creation. By contrast, however, I share BMK's concern that the proportion of time spent editing the encyclopedia vs using it as a social platform is too skewed the wrong way. The first bullet of WP:HERE is [a] genuine interest in improving the encyclopedic content (articles and media). That exists as evidenced by the GAs and mainspace edits, but, it's quite clearly superseded by other interests. Too much, for my own tastes. I quite deplore the fact that my own mainspace editing comprises less than half my total edits. But I digress, I consider that 'weak' rationales are worth consideration, if perhaps afforded less than total weight.
    In brief, I cannot support the nomination, but I do not believe that this should even go to a crat-chat. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

    I completely disagree with the conclusions of the comment above. The nomination has been at a steady 73% for quite some time (as the report will show graphically), and never moved above that mark once it hit it. This is a strong indication that the community is fundamentally divided, and that the opposes were representative of one part of the community, while the supports represented another and this never changed. Such a fundamental divisionss were precisely what crat-chats were designed for, and a bureaucrat who passed the candidate without benefit of consultation with his compatriots would, in fact, be casting a super-vote, which would be a dangerous thing to do. The community is dividied, so it is up to the bureaucrats to make a decision, and only a collective decision, yea or nay, will properly serve us. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

    No, I think the consensus on this one is pretty clear. 73% indicates that the community largely supports this candidate, albeit with a sizable vocal minority who are more hesitant. Unless I'm remembering incorrectly, the discretionary range for closing RfAs had been lowered at some point over the past few years. A bureaucrat chat would accomplish nothing beyond delaying the passage of a clearly successful RfA, unless you believe that one is necessary for posterity's sake. Kurtis ^(talk) 22:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

    I'd rather that 'crats had almost no discretion to prevent a chat even if it seems obvious to them or other editors which way the consensus lies. I'd rather make certain there isn't any sort of supervote. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 22:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

    Mr rnddue, perhaps this post will help orient you to legitimate questions being asked. Not only are there no "evidence free accusations"; the removal of the welcome template and diving straight in to answering edit requests is a clear indication of an experienced editor that needs no explanation. But better, the nominator already acknowledged the not-new/experienced aspect, so that's moot. It's up to individual editors to decide whether the explanation satisfies them, but labeling the questioning of a level of experience as "bad faith" or "illegitimate" when one only has to look at the first day's edits, which involved clear knowledge of Wikipedia policies, guidelines and processes-- when the nominator has already acknolwedged the issue-- seems odd. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

88. I've been dithering over this for most of the week, but ultimately I have to oppose. First, to be clear, I'm satisfied with Q6 and don't have any concerns about previous editing activity, and I'm not too worried about account age or namespace balance either. The main concern for me is that there are just too many issues regarding his activity in the areas he wants to work in as an admin. It's just a lot of little things: revert-warring with LTAs on user talk pages (JavaHurricane's oppose), very broad interpretations of the revdel policy (Q29/Clayoquot's most recent oppose), a heavy reliance on templates in the edit-request context that leads to hastiness and avoidable mistakes (Clayoquot's first oppose, Mr rnddude's oppose, Spicy's oppose), a lack of experience at AfD, where he says he wants to work (e.g. a non-policy-based "delete and redirect" suggestion at this AfD; not recognizing that this AfD needed to be analyzed under WP:NPROF/WP:NAUTHOR as well as the GNG; the problems with closures noted by Wugapodes). Would I be opposing on any of these things individually? No. But together, they paint a picture of someone who's just moving a little too quickly and could use a bit more experience before jumping into admin work. Like others, I very much hope SFR will run again at some point in the future, but I just don't think this is the right time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
89. Oppose: Seems too soon, and the lack of mainspace content contributions. DB1729^talk 22:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
90. Before someone complains about this being outside of the 168 hours, RfAs end when they are closed by bureaucrats. Jbhunley's was put on hold over 11 hours after its scheduled conclusion. Having vacillated for the last few days on how best to express my discomfort with ScottishFinnishRadish becoming an administrator, I find my thoughts to be most accurately portrayed by Extraordinary Writ above me, with Hammersoft's point: in 2022, the role of the administrator has evolved from purely-technical access to one that has social capital in dispute resolution. Part of that privilege is a responsibility to calm the waters. Given the 305 edits to BLPN and the 554 edits to AN/ANI and the stated interest to deal with BLP violations, I suspect that the candidate will find themselves in situations that they will have to defuse. If they respond in that way, and cannot see how there is an issue with their approach, the candidate should not be given that privilege. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
91. Oppose: This is my second-ever RfA vote, but I must vote oppose per Sdrqaz. Don't want an admin who's more than willing to haul me to some noticeboard, instead of dealing it with civility and patience even if their personal views are polar opposites with what is at hand. Wikipedia is meant to be a site for collaboration, not a site for inculpation of other editors over minor disagreements which I'm sure could've been resolved in a manner which did not invoke Wikilawyering. Disagreements can happen, yes, I just do not like the way that SFR has dealt with it. X-750 _{List of articles that I have screwed over} 00:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
92. While I regretfully oppose, I am moved by the 91 before me who have each enumerated good cause for concern. Of all, I mostly agree with Wehwalt and choose caution, even if in err.--John Cline (talk) 00:38, 20 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)

   @BiscuitsToTheRescue: You are entirely incorrect. Back in 2019 RfAs became a discussion around consensus to promote ultimately decided by our bureaucrats rather than a numerical vote by regular editors with a narrow discretionary range. For that reason, I stopped participating. I made my comment in the sincere desire to endorse this candidate even though I know the !vote is rigged. Thank you for asking for my explanation rather than mischaracterize my position. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

   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 [27], knew about WP:CSD#G11 (admins can see deleted history of this userpage), knew about WP:AGF [28], knew about how to request semi-protection [29], and knew about WP:AIV [30] (and despite saying they didn't know about template warnings, they were using {{uw-vandalism2}} less than 3 hours later [31]. 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've been pondering this on and off for days. Sitting on the fence is getting painful. I'm satisfied with SFR's explanation of their editing history (and people, I really didn't accuse them of being a sock; I asked them to reconcile the disparate data points, which they did). I've read much here, and looked into much. The Fernandez situation is an excellent example of how I feel. Did SFR act in the wrong? No, probably not. Would I have handled it differently? Absolutely. But, in so much of Wikipedia, there's not one way to act and be acting in the best interests of the project. That's what I see in a lot of this. There's much that I disagree with, but nothing that leaps out to say definitely incompatible with being an admin. So, I'm torn. Is this a neutral then? Maybe, but to me not really. Mainly, I just wanted to get off the fence and explain why. I still may yet post in oppose/support. I don't know. User:Ealdgyth's oppose gives me pause and something new to think about. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:49, 16 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)

2. 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.)

   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) I'm going to move to "support". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

   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)(moved to oppose)

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

3. 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)

   I'll stay at neutral. Every time I think of supporting, some fair opposing argument arises and vice versa.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

4. Neutral I hate ending up here, as I find most of the time neutral votes are more grandstanding/bloviating than actually useful, but I'm genuinely torn here. I think the socking/clean start accusations are bs, but I see enough to give me pause, such as revert warring with LTAs and in general spending too much time on dramaboards. I've looked at the candidate's GAs and I don't see any issues with them, and in general despite doing quite a bit of "content" work myself I don't have super high standards. With that said, I would like to see more mainspace edits from SFR. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
5. I'm on the fence, so I've ended up neutral. Like Johnuniq above, I am concerned about SFR's part in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing. Also about their part in this discussion of whether JP Sears is a conspiracy theorist or not. SFR has alluded briefly to both these issues in their answers above, numbers 3 and 22, but not in a way that really reassures me. On the other hand, they've done a lot of good stuff, and I completely disagree with the people who think they're not experienced enough. So here I am. Bishonen | tålk 21:43, 18 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)

I don't mean 2005, no. As for "candidates seem to either be passing with 90%+ support or not at all", aren't we in the midst of a probable exception to that theory? Tamzin's also really wasn't that long ago ... Sdrqaz (talk) 11:56, 19 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)

  Imagine living though that skeptic ArbCom case and all the drama that unfolded before and after. Sgerbic (talk) 01:53, 17 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 [32] 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)

LordPeterII, yeah, we have had an alright amount of RfAs here recently. Last month, we gained 1 sysop, but for the rest of this year, we have had a net loss. And yes, I agree with you for the most part. I am concerned but I don't think we're going to see the death of Wikipedia, I think at some point soon people will finally realise that people here really need to be more lenient with their RfA criteria if we want to actually see more admins about. The community has realised that RfA is a deeply unpleasant environment, now we need to see some action from the community to change that. --Ferien (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Why not have an RfA committee, and votes are submitted privately with comment, diffs, etc. included. Then votes are tallied and an outcome is presented. That way we're not displaying dirty laundry for all to see and pass judgment on or bicker about. People can do their own digging and vote accordingly. Is there any reason to make the commenting and voting public facing? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Because doing your "own digging" takes time and effort. The audience benefits from the diffs a few motivated individuals provide, keeping this a consensus decision. An RfA committee would be inherently unfair because adminship would solely be a matter of gaming the commitee. All the corruption would be aimed there and the admins we get would lack the political consensus of editors. If you think "dirty laundry" is unseemly then criticize the failings of the candidates.Chris Troutman (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Chris troutman:I was unclear, I think. I meant all of us still vote, and the consensus is still one of all of us, just that they are submitted to the committee for tally. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Pyrrho the Skipper: I am far too cynical for that: the only vote I trust is one where I can see who voted how. Any vote tallied in private could be rigged. Typically, any vote a person is allowed is one that doesn't matter. I have doubts our votes via SecurePoll are honest. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I do not buy into the RFA is broken narrative. I'm sure it's unpleasant for a candidate to be opposed. So what? Not every candidate is going to pass by 99%, and some will fail. If you can't take the heat, you probably shouldn't be an admin. Banks Irk (talk) 22:49, 16 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)

SandyGeorgia, I wasn't quoting you and I didn't mention you or your comments. This is an area for general questions and my question really concerned how we evaluate candidates and future RfAs. Your comments did prompt my wondering about this issue but if I wanted to dialogue with you about your Oppose, I would have put a comment underneath your comment section in the Opposes or on the Talk page of this RfA. Because it was a general question about RfAs, I put it down here in the discussion section but perhaps I should have posed in on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. I'm sorry if you felt that this general question about how to factor an editor's early experience into their overall tenure as an editor was a negative response to your valid Oppose because that wasn't my intention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I think you're viewing this from the wrong lens. You may find that part of the reason for this mischaracterization is because of your tone towards SFR. To be blunt: it was harsh. The "strongest possible oppose" combined w/ the "not this editor's first account" will cause people (including me) who skim votes to think you're alluding to socking. In fact, you may have accidentally helped SFR pass his RfA; the unintentional allusion to a non-existent issue has drowned out the noise of other (valid) reasons to oppose. —VersaceSpace 🌃 02:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I see the word "sock" being thrown around in the supports a ton, which illustrates my point pretty much "to the T" —VersaceSpace 🌃 02:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:SOCK is the multiple account policy. "Sock" == "multiple accounts", including WP:LEGITSOCK (legitimate multiple accounts). Undoubtedly, "not this editor's first account" is invoking the WP:SOCK policy. Levivich (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It could be a returning RTV. A bit silly to think that nobody would query all that previous knowledge though. It invites suspicion.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm almost 100% sure that SandyGeorgia was referring to an undisclosed WP:CLEANSTART. —VersaceSpace 🌃 18:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Versace, I don't know where you got that 100% certainty; next time, go for 99% to give yourself a margin for error, as I made no claim (I linked to earlier concerns raised by another editor and easily found when examining the early editing history and editor talk page, whether labeled a cleanstart, RTV, socklegit or anything else ... the editing history was suggestive of experience that was not disclosed in the nomination). At an RFA, we should be able to expect an honest presentation with disclosure of past issues. The candidate has now acknowledged why they appeared to be a not-new editor, as was easily observed early on. No opposer that I saw applied any label among those that became the support rallying cry of "not a sock" (no one ever said they were, and Spartaz who raised the issue first did not weigh in here for many days). The terminology problem has been explored in more depth at WT:RFA; perhaps a not-new editor, as SFR has acknowledged, is a better description. At any rate, the lack of understanding of how different Wikipedia is from a Wiki one runs themselves is just another bit of TOOSOON. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Excuse me...I said I was almost 100% certain, so I did leave room for error. You said SFR's editing was suggestive of a returning editor, and you didn't specify what kind of a returning user you spoke of. So what are we left with? Assumptions, and mine was WP:CLEANSTART. I do not see how SFR leaving out his few IP edits before making an account creates a dishonest presentation of himself, they were minor copy-edits. "The lack of understanding of how different Wikipedia is from a Wiki one runs themselves is just another bit of TOOSOON" is just a low level of argumentation. SFR didn't compare editing on other Wikis to editing Wikipedia, he just noted that he's edited a Wiki before, so he knew a bit of the jargon. An editor with nearly 29,000 edits obviously knows the difference between editing a different Wiki and editing Wikipedia...an editor with that amount of edits is not who WP:NOTNOW was made for, and the fact that you're calling it WP:TOOSOON makes me question whether or not you've actually read the essay you tried invoking. —VersaceSpace 🌃 02:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll grant your almost works (and I'm sure you understood Too Soon as Not Now, and Too Soon is just what I meant in English without the link). SFR explained why they knew their way around Wikipedia (dispute resolution, and the like); the few IP edits aren't relevant in the bigger picture. Anyway, my point was that I made no claim about what led to the experience that Spartaz pointed out; now we know (much after the fact). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I was just playing, originally I included a ";)" but decided it was too juvenile. Now I'm looking at what I said and think it was too grim. Oh well. I get that you made no direct claims, but a suggestion of a "returning editor" is usually a steep accusation no matter which way it's meant. Which is definitely why we now have a long thread of experienced users on WT:RfA expressing discontent over socking accusations that didn't happen, at least directly. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

On that we can agree :) I had a very busy week working hard on a fundraiser, not home much, and tired to the bone when I was; filing an oppose at RFA from my phone was not my best moment. So here we are. I could feel some burden of responsibility for the outcome, but then ... people also should have a burden to read and not react to the first thing they see (as some did--adding on both sides). It will be a curious exercise in that the 'crats expect opposers to support their opposition, but I wonder whether the mindless "not a sock" supports will count fully even if based on fallacy. Thx for the discussion, sorry I missed the almost, and go for the smilie whenever the chance presents itself! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Corrected (above) per observation on talk from Vanamonde93, with apologies for typing such a mindlessly careless word when too tired. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

---

I can't help but notice that quite a few opposes are based wholly or partly on thinly veiled or not at all veiled concerns of sockpuppetry, which seem to be outside the jurisdiction of RFA, and I hope that crats give these all the weight they deserve when making their decision. Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

---

• Wishing you luck in the crat chat, ScottishFinnishRadish. —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.