Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/ScottishFinnishRadish

This is an RfA talk page.

While voting and most discussion should occur on the main RfA page, sometimes discussions stray off-topic or otherwise clutter that page. The RfA talk page serves to unclutter the main RfA page by hosting discussions that are not related to the candidacy.

Please remain calm and civil in discussions on both pages, avoiding personal attacks and harassment. Uninvolved administrators can still fully intervene in RfAs.
Discussions should stay on-topic; consider moving or continuing discussions that are going off-topic elsewhere.
Move discussions not germane to the candidacy here, then link them with {{subst:rfan|dm|name of section header}}, indented to the original vote. Be conservative in using the template; obvious trolls and disruptive participants need not be noticed.
Otherwise, avoid starting discussions here if they would be of interest to RfA participants and can fit on the main RfA page; generally, discussions should begin at the "General comments" section or as an indented reply to a vote.

Clarification

SFR's responses use lots of TLAs. I understand most of them but was puzzling over ATP just now and am still not sure what it means in this case. That response also talks of "guidelines" when it perhaps means "sidelines". Please proof-read or clarify to avoid confusion. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the typo, was trying to get something up before I left for work. An ATP is an acceptance test procedure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

When I have some free time this evening I'm going to burn through the questions asked, but I was wondering if it's bad form to respond to some of the !votes to provide context or responses, or should I try and shoehorn that into answers? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Best to put it in the answers / wait for a more on-topic question. Responding to the opposes brings more tears than clarity. Femke (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It is your decision. Historically/traditionally, a nominee will not respond to anything other than questions, but some do. There is no rule saying that you can (or cannot) do so. Primefac (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another quick question, directed to the arbs: I know you can't verify that I wasn't lying about my email address, but it's it possible to verify that I did email you shortly after I began editing from an email address with a real name? I know you can't verify that I didn't make it to hoodwink the community but it may help some of the concerns. Similarly, a statement about my utrs ticket where I had to disclose my employer, which I'm sure was verified by a checkuser, would be appreciated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm emails were sent that had a name attached. There was no attempt to verify identity to ArbCom and I cannot verify that the name is their real life name from the name alone. Of course SFR has not claimed that either of these things were true either. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates should be able to participate in the discussions in the oppose section. But it will, ridiculously, likely be considered "hounding", so I recommend against it. Sometimes WP discourages useful things; this is one long-standing example. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This dialogue, IMO, goes beyond the conventionally acceptable for a RfA. If I'm wrong, like everything else that's been going wrong with RfA, it will certainly set a new precedent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates#During your RfA #4 (only an essay) is the only non-talk page guidance I recall seeing on this. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It may 'only' be an essay Kj cheetham, but it was built on thorough research of hundreds of RfA, and has become the undisputed, most detailed and comprehensive advice/guide/help to aspiring admins for the last 11 years. It has had a total of 506 edits by 145 contributors and is also the most viewed page of its kind. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I'd just meant it's not a formal policy or guideline. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did respond to oppose !votes in my AFD. I don't know if it helped or hindered the process. I'm not sure whether Kudpung is referring to that as "this dialogue" or whether he's talking about asking for advice in this talk page... in the case of the latter I think admins should be open to asking for advice on administrative matters that they are not 100% sure on. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, yes, but candidates are generally mentored through the process somewhere else by their nominators and AFAIK, it's usually offline. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI to opposers re passwords

If it would be possible to guess your password in this manner, go reset your password now. If it would not be, then don't worry about it. Don't feed the trolls. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Someone very badly wants to gain access to my Wikipedia account. Similar attempts to hack accounts were also seen in years past during arb cases. Change your passwords; choose strong passwords. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a back-handed way of implying those supporting this candidate are trying to hack accounts. That is quite an accusation which ought to have evidence to be made. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It happened before at one of the last controversial RfAs, and I suspect it will happen again in the future too. I don't think there's any ill intent or back-handedness behind the comment by Sandy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. Are there folks trying to hack accounts? Yes. Is it being done to target those opposing this candidate? We don't know. Sandy is making an accusation from her anecdote, which is my issue with this. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is curious is that it also happens during arb cases; only by mentioning it did we (all) found out how widespread it was among arbcase participants. I guess we'll find in this case if it's only me, or if there are others; at any rate, forewarned is forearmed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that it's more likely a discord-sowing tactic than an actual attempt at compromise - seeing a dozen failed attempts to log into your account is quite disconcerting, and I think the average Wikipedian's first thought after seeing that is wondering "who have I ticked off recently?" My suspicion is that it's third parties trying to get everyone thinking that the "other side" is trying to hack them, but that's no more than conjecture on my part. Unfortunately, there's not much we can do about this; we'd need phab:T174388 solved for you to be able to see what IP is trying to reset your password or phab:T315488 solved for a checkuser to be able to see it. And yes, please make sure you have a strong password, and admins and other folks with sensitive perms should consider setting up 2fa GeneralNotability (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thx for those thoughts GN. If their attempt is to sow discord, then perhaps I should not have even brought it up, but it seems sensible that others need to be warned. (And thanks Sideswipe9th as always; it seems you have a good understanding of who I am and how I write ... particularly after a grueling day of fundraiser work and having to deal with that from my phone. I'm an opposer and my account is targeted; I said nothing about "supporters" or who might be behind it.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I remember this happening to a number of participants to a particular ANI thread about a couple of years ago. (Can't remember exact details) Suspicion turned to the user that was the subject of the thread. It subsequently turned out *likely* to be a particular LTA (again, I can't remember how that was identified) who didn't even have any discernible interest in framing the the thread subject. Just wanted to cause trouble I think per GeneralNotability's conjecture. DeCausa (talk) 09:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend using password managers, like KeePassXC, to store passwords. It allows you to have much much stronger passwords as well as have unique passwords for each site and/or accountsince you avoid having to remember each and every one. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 09:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All editors can apply for two-factor authentication. Here's a good essay that takes no sides on whether you should enable it or not. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another security option is to turn on "Send password reset emails only when both email address and username are provided." in your Preferences settings. At the very least it prevents unsolicited emails from being sent to you. – robertsky (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There were multiple attempts yesterday to hack my account as well. Coincidence? I don't think so. Banks Irk (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. It has happened before at contentious RFAs, arb cases, and long ANI threads. I wouldn't read anything into it – probably an unrelated LTA messing around. –FlyingAce^✈hello 14:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps so, but 400+ attempts to hack my account in the past two days do not suggest that it is merely random. Banks Irk (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't read into this too much. If you have a strong password, you're perfectly fine. Anyone watching this RfA is most likely to know that attempts to log in with wrong passwords is notified to owner. The more you get frustrated, the more you feed the trolls, who keeps doing it for the sheer fun of it. If you're unsure about your account's safety, use WP:2FA if you wish. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I average about 10-40 a day, RFA or not so I think you're all attributing way too much to this RFA. PICKLEDICAE🥒 15:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what my numbers look like, but I've decided it best now to discuss details privately, per WP:BEANS. I do agree this is most likely just an attempt to sow discord. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's not random: it's a troll who is choosing obvious targets in the hopes of creating drama, as already explained by GN above. (Have you thought through how incredibly dumb this would be as a strategy for accomplishing anything by someone who cared about the outcome of the RfA ?) JBL (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, I've encountered the same thing. Very curious.--IndyNotes (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only good thing about this discussion is it will end when the RfA ends.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it may just move to email per WP:BEANS. Why do you think a) others don't need to be alerted that this is happening, or b) data gathering can't be useful in addressing the (apparently) ongoing issue across multiple venues? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS, pls feel free to email the answers to that, as you surely have more knowledge about this issue that I don't, and BEANS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's WP:LTA/GRP but maybe this is a controversial one since Tamzin's RfA. Thingofme (talk) 10:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny, I got my first "multiple failed attempts to log in" notification 18 hours after my RfA ended. And... ignored it and carried on with my day, because, y'know, I try not to give trolls exactly what they want. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How fortunate that you knew it was trolling. Now more of us do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I opposed. 90+ attempts. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected

I have semi-protected the article for 24 hours to prevent vandalism. Although I've commented on the RfA, I don't believe this meets the threshold of WP:INVOLVED, but if any admin thinks it does, they are free to remove the protection without consulting me. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"the article"? Not sure I follow what this is in relation to. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure they mean the RFA. There was some vandalism earlier. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Mindless supports"

Sandy, calling a bunch of the support !votes "mindless" [1] is really rather unfair, and I urge you to strike that statement. You may disagree with them on the substance, but denying their ability to think about their choices is discourteous. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are right; too tired, will figure out something less obnoxious before I fall asleep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies again, seriously, stupid. Better now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree with the characterization, but it's less ad hominem, thank you. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add more, but I'm so bone tired that I'm fairly sure I'd mess it up. Thanks for calling that out; it was quite discourteous, and I hadn't even realized I had done it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hob Gadling's Oppose

Hi! I was wondering if the replies to Hob Gadling's oppose should be moved here. They are starting to be less and less about the RFA. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 20:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True, but there are only about 8 replies and the RFA ends in just over 24 hours from now. I don't see there being much further discussion and it's not a terribly huge set of responses. Primefac (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even the first reply was not about the RFA at all. It would be fine with me to move them all here, but I will defer to superior experience. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for the quick reply, Primefac :) — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 20:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving your own !vote

User:Clayoquot appears to have moved their own !vote to the bottom of the oppose section with the edit summary Bumping this to the bottom as the issue of revision deletions hasn't gotten any discussion and I'd like to know what others think. Is this something that you are allowed to do? Moving your own comment to a more prominent position to influence !votes leaves a bad taste in my mouth. House Blaster^talk 17:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was to bring attention to the candidate's answers to Q29, not really to influence votes since I expect people would have varying opinions on the candidate's answers to Q29. But if anyone wants to move my comment back I have no objection. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the protocol is for that and am not objecting, but I guess the potentially better option would have been to start a thread in the General Comments section. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think moving it back would be productive. I raised this more as a "do we want to set the precedent that this is okay?" than a "do I have permission to move it back?". I echo Kj cheetham's comments that a note in the General Comments section would have been a better way to draw attention to something, but here and now, it is water under the bridge. House Blaster^talk 18:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't suggest that it be moved back, particularly at this late date, but I think that it should not have been done. There are better ways to bring attention to a Candidate's answer to a question, either on the Project Page or in Talk. Banks Irk (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the three of you that this wasn't a good move on my part. I wish I had thought of making a note in General Comments. Thanks for the feedback. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Clayoquot has the opposite problem that SFR has. I find it very hard to believe that an experienced Wikipedian would take constructive criticism onboard and acknowledge they made a mistake. Particularly when three other editors disagree with you; you're supposed to call that tag teaming or bullying. Clayoquot, tell the truth; you're a new editor masquerading as an experienced one, aren't you? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
16 years on Wikipedia is considered new? Nythar^T^.^C 20:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, is 1.5 years considered new? House Blaster^talk 21:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clayoquot has been here for 16 years. I'm not sure I know who Floquenbeam was referring to, though. Nythar^T^.^C 22:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure Floquenbeam was referring to me. The issue is that if I want to sound like a truly experienced editor, I need to hone my skills in making talk page comments that are simultaneously civil and totally dismissive. I will study our template messages for inspiration ;) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clayoquot fortunately the most friendly and generous editors waste their time interacting with users, while template-editors efficiently manage their time honing policy-compliant condescension, that can be slapped on an unsuspecting user's talk page. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shushugah: Wouldn't it be more appropriate to not point fingers at a specific user group here? 0xDeadbeef 13:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is why emoticons were invented. Levivich (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. Sorry for that ping. 0xDeadbeef 15:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, he deserved it for not using an emoticon ;-) Levivich (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to SFR and the opposes because 1.5 years is "too new". Sometimes my humor is ~~beyond~~ below mere mortals ;) House Blaster^talk 23:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I thought this was serious. Nythar^T^.^C 23:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting past deadline??

Did anyone notice the deadline for voting is clearly 21.58 UTC.....and a few votes (opposes to be specific) came in past that time...? How do you deal with that? Volten001 ^☎ 22:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in policy or procedure that requires the RFA to be only 7 days in length, only that it must be a minimum of 7 days. Until {{atop}} or similar is used to indicate closing or closure of the discussion, people are free to comment. If you wish to draw attention, you can of course leave a comment at WP:BN, but I trust the crats are generally watchful for such things and will be along sooner or later accordingly. Izno (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. So the votes get counted in as long as the discussion is open. Once the discussion is closed, then Wikipedia is a bureaucracy. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta say I've always found it amusing that we're not a bureaucracy yet we literally have bureaucrats. Clovermoss (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before someone rushes off to BN, it says at the top of the page that "if you are here to report that an RFA or an RFB is "overdue" or "expired", please wait at least 12 hours from the scheduled end time before making a post here about it. There are a fair number of active bureaucrats, and all of them keep an eye on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience." (emphasis in original). House Blaster^talk 22:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is a very contentious discussion so crats may take time to close it. Thingofme (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thingofme: In case of borderline RfA (or heated/contentious discussion), it is generally closed as "pending closure", "preparing closing statement", "processing", or "cratchat opened". That can be seen in heated RfCs, RMs, and similar venues. In RfA, it can be seen with Money Emoji/Tree's RfA. It was closed for input/comments while the cratchat was opened. —usernamekiran (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some ancient history:

Cla68's RFA before SlimVirgin asked that the normal deadline for closing be extended because she hadn't seen it.
Cla68's RFA at its scheduled closing time, about 12 hours later.
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cla68 as it closed two days after its scheduled closing time.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient RfAs can be wild to look back on. Jimmy Wales deleting an AfD page started by the candidate? I've taken a glance at some of the 2007 ones because people tend to reference them as a turning point. This one is interesting. The candidate had an account for 6 months but claimed to be editing for years... 53 supports and 3 opposes. No questions asked about their prior editing history or any references to it in the opposes. Clovermoss (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to Faithlessthewonderboy, who is still an admin, is misleading. The candidate said he had edited for years as an IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's still editing for years and the nom explicitly mentions "He certainly acts like someone who's been here for more than six months". No one asked them to prove it, though, or alluded to it in a "I don't think they're being truthful about this" manner. It could've gone the "how long were you editing as an IP? How did you figure out these things? I don't really believe that you haven't edited under another account because anyone can say they edited as an IP?" route. I guess I could've clarified a bit more. I wasn't trying to make a direct comparison between the two, by the way. I realize RfA standards have changed a lot since 2007 and mostly think of them as interesting from a historical standpoint. Clovermoss (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC), edited 00:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Faithless RFA shows that even in 2007, folks knew to declare their previous involvement with Wikipedia in their nom statement, and not wait to be asked. By declaring it, there was no need to ask those questions. BTW, on the ancient (Cla68) RFA, the list of those who showed up to oppose (late) is interesting to view from the perspective of 15 years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough to know if it was standard practice. I do get the impression that editing as an IP was considered way more common at some point, so I guess people didn't really raise eyebrows in the same way they do now? JBW mentions that they didn't think it was worth mentioning in theirs. Clovermoss (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contributors to this discussion may be interested to comment at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Automatically closing RfAs after a week. –xeno^talk 00:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]