Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Tails Wx

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FA criteria question[edit]

Hey, AirshipJungleman29! Can you elaborate on how TWx's thinking on getting an article through FA helps you assess whether or not they'd be a good admin? Valereee (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, as it stands, TWx (is that the preferred acronym?) is pretty borderline (between support and neutral, not oppose) on my personal, entirely subjective criteria. In the absence of specific technical reasons for the mop, or a personal reason to support, I like to see evidence that a potential administrator knows how to evaluate improvements to high-level content, because while administrators do not directly adjudicate on specific content disputes, they do indirectly—judging on conduct issues such as WP:OWN at ANI, closing discussions such as RfCs and XfDs, evaluating whether to place a block or not—all of these can involve assessing content policies like WP:WEIGHT, WP:BALANCE, WP:SYNTH, WP:ONUS, WP:NOT, WP:BLP etc.
There is no easy way, to my mind, of assessing whether a candidate can do that within a single question at RfA. Normally, I look to whether the candidate has significant content creations, especially FA. TWx does not and, as I noted, effectively has one article which they built from scratch to GA-quality. From looking at it, it appears to clearly meet the GA criteria and would have a fair chance to be promoted at FAC, but perhaps there are a couple of the content policies above which the article could be improved?
It is the hallmark of a good adminstrator that they are always open-minded, but also confident in their decisions. I would be satisfied if TWx looked over this article they have invested a lot of time into, and thought "hmm, actually, it doesn't meet an FA criterion, and that part can definitely be improved." I would also be satisfied if they said "no, I don't think this article can get to FA, because there aren't the requisite sources", or if they said "yes, it's good enough, and here's why" — all of these responses would be met with an immediate support. The only thing that wouldn't would be a response that showed no interest in grappling with the finer points of content policies—if they don't do that at their RfA, why would they do it at AfD, in RfCs, or at ANI?
Again, this is a reflection of my personal, entirely subjective criteria. Others may disagree, or say that the candidate has no intention of getting involved in the areas above. That doesn't really matter to me—I feel like I should trust an admin to get involved wherever their community-granted authority allows them to. Incidentally, a previous question of mine now residing at your hall-of-shame collection was definitely poorly-thought out, but coming from the same point of view. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One of mine is in there too! I like to ask personality / perspective style questions, since they tend toward invariance, while concrete knowledge and expertise will increase over time. Intuiting what kind of admin a person will be in a year or more, once they're kinda established, seems like as important a goal as determining whether they're ready for the tools now, but that might be a minority opinion. Folly Mox (talk) 05:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope anyone I nominate will be the same editor, just with more buttons a year after getting admin. That's how I felt about myself and that's why I wrote WP:MUSHROOM. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just note here that I think Q5 is totally irrelevant and does the candidate a disservice by putting them on the spot to come up with an answer to a question that they shouldn't have been asked in this forum. RoySmith (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather surprised you think being put on the spot is bad, RoySmith. Surely showing they can cope with unexpected events is a good thing? Just to be clear, I don't really mind you thinking it's irrelevant. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't trial by fire or a fraternity hazing. The goal here is to figure out if the candidate is sufficiently grounded in our WP:PAG and has the right temperament to handle the responsibilities that come with a mop. Asking them questions about things which have nothing to do with those responsibilities doesn't help do that. You might as well be asking them about the airspeed of an unladen swallow. RoySmith (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I would think positively of nearly every response, so I think the question was less a trial by fire and more me handing them a sheet of paper with "Trial By Fire" written on it—only one response leads to me !voting neutral, and theirs wasn't it. Again, these are my personal feelings. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like to see evidence that a potential administrator knows how to evaluate improvements to high-level content, because while administrators do not directly adjudicate on specific content disputes, they do indirectly—judging on conduct issues such as WP:OWN at ANI, closing discussions such as RfCs and XfDs, evaluating whether to place a block or not—all of these can involve assessing content policies: Yeah, IMO you aren't understanding the difference between content and conduct. For example, OWN is not about content. It may feel like it's about content to the disputees, but it isn't, not at all. Valereee (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if it's the purest form of OWN. But in a situation where an admin decides what is OWN and what is reverting vandalism or disruptive editing, perhaps in a controversial area (tendentious editing especially concerns content policies)...
anyway, do you think the same about the other forms of indirect content evaluation I mentioned Valereee? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since you asked, I think it's a stretch to say any of them are about admins assessing content other than on the same level as any other competent editor's understanding of content policy. You seem to be saying behavior policy is so inextricably linked to content policy that you need to see whether an admin understands our highest levels of content policy before you can decide whether to support or not. Valereee (talk) 12:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I need to see whether a potential admin is willing to engage at all. I feel like that's an adequate bar; some may have a higher one (see David Fuchs' oppose). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2 question limit[edit]

@Banks Irk. I believe with your 3rd question now, you are over the two question limit. Would you consider rephrasing it as a comment and moving it to the discussion section? –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be a follow-up which is allowed? Barkeep49 (talk) 03:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah you're right. Never mind then. Sorry for the trouble! –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.. A follow-up, that reads like casting aspersions, unless Banks Irk was just confused about changing usernames, given the exchange at Barkeep's talk page. Let's hope that there aren't any trans editors who have previously edited under a name used before transitioning go through RfA in the future with someone asking that sort of question. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the candidate's prior usernames implicate gender identity in any way whatsoever. This comment is a total red herring. I'm not casting aspersions, I'm directing challenging the candidate's candor and transparency and because of it I do not trust them with admin tools. Banks Irk (talk) 03:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was only pointing out a hypothetical situation. There is no connection between the example and this RfA other than the thought experiment that the hypothetical candidate go through the same questioning. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I buy the hypothetical. If User John Smith is a clean start from User Joan Smith and is a candidate for RFA, I for one would want to see their entire edit history under both names and think that they would need to disclose the prior account. But, that's not the issue here. Banks Irk (talk) 04:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing username is not equivalent to a clean start. The former relies on the person handling the request to rename the user, which preserves the contributions attached to the same account. The latter is creating a new account with no contributions carried over. If you didn't understand this distinction beforehand I would suggest striking some of your follow-up comments made at the RfA. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Not sure if this is your problem or not, but in case it is) Renaming doesn't stop someone from seeing the edit history from a previous name. The edits stay in that user's contributions, they just have to be looked up under the new name. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand the difference. I am not confused about that at all. Obviously, I was able to look at the candidate's edit history under three different usernames and a handful of alternate accounts...other than the admin blanking of their userpage. That isn't the sole issue. Banks Irk (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Banks Irk Can you clarify what exactly your issue is? As I understand it the user's account was renamed twice, which retains all their edit history in the same account. What 'clean start' are you talking about? Sam Walton (talk) 10:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to look at the candidate's edit history under three different usernames ... - How, precisely? Edit (or rather 'contribution') history is merged when an editor undergoes a user rename. If you look up the contribution history of User:Sarrail – Tail Wx's previous username (only previous username, Sarrail2 was an alternate account renamed to Tails Wx9) – you will find a page that says "Sarrail" is not registered on this wiki (the same is true of User:Sarrail2). There are no contributions there because they are found in Tail Wx's (and Tail Wx9's) contribution history. This whole fuss about the renaming, doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to others probably precisely for that reason. There is no 'edit history' hidden from the masses to uncover from a rename. There is such a concern for a clean start account. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude: There were other usernames: User:Severestorm28 and User:Severestorm00. I am not sure why the candidate did not address these multiple names or the userpage(s) deletion: but I do not known if it is nefarious. I voted support because I am trusting that Barkeep49 has done their homework prior to nominating. Lightburst (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I can say is that Tails has said that this is the only account they've used. It's had several usernames but remains the same account. I have no evidence to believe otherwise and I trust them based on what the rest of my look into their actions tell me. If people (and admittedly this seems to be a person rather than people) think not disclosing that is deceptive there's not much I can do to convince them otherwise but obviously as we can all name these accounts it's not like they're actually hidden. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Struck the error from my comment, thanks for pointing it out Lightburst, though the same applies to the contribution history of those two usernames. None exist because it's merged into Tail Wx's and Tail Wx9's contributions. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude: Severestorm00 is a different account, "an alternate account" according to wayback. I do not know if the candidate's answer to question 15 is now accurate. I imagine @Barkeep49: has the tools to see? Lightburst (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tails Wx disclosed two alternate accounts on this RfA with the acceptance of the nomination. These are Tails Wx9 and Tails Wx1. Severestorm28 = Sarrail = Tails Wx. Severestorm00 = Sarrail2 = Tails Wx9. Tails Wx1 was created in February 2023 after the rename of both Sarrail and Sarrail2 to Tails Wx and Tails Wx9 respectively. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude: thanks for helping. Can I have a Venn diagram please! :) Lightburst (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

huh, there's another previous username, kangsea0. see here. ltbdl (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I missed this one too. That's four usernames plus a handful of alternate accounts in two plus years. Plus their prior userpage was partially involuntary oversighted by an admin and then, after the latest name change, asking that their userpage be oversighted completely just three months ago. And they can't remember why. Ask yourself, "Who does that and why?" Banks Irk (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Curious[edit]

You're going to have to entertain me squinting sideways here about a possible undisclosed connection between ChrisWx and Tails Wx. The 'Wx' suffix here means weather and it's quite apparent that both users are interested in 'severe weather' events, particularly in hurricanes, tornadoes, and similar. This alone is not a flag of any kind because users with overlapping interests exist. Thus, I was unsurprised to find a decent overlap between the two users on these articles using the editor interaction analyzer.

However, what I am surprised by is the two editors responding to each other in the span of... seconds? This is unusual, even with the presumption that it was an expected return given the similar interaction minutes prior here. Still to respond in 25 seconds is unbelievably quick. I can barely do that even responding to myself on my own talk page in my own thread. The second of two tests - which was quicker - took 17 seconds. How in the hell do you see a ping, check your talk page, open the new section, write even a short canned response, provide an edit summary, and post it in 25 seconds. Unless, of course, you were expecting it in that precise moment (and that is key).

Am I being paranoid - possibly caused by the whole hullabaloo concerning renames above - or is that really unusual to others and not just myself?

Speaking of which, just thought to check for renames, and I find that ChrisWx originally used the name Chrispanda renaming their account on 1 April 2023. This is also the moment the editor returned to active editing following a long hiatus from 2021 that can be seen here. This rename occurred about a month and a half after the rename of Sarrail2 to Tails Wx9 on 15 February 2023.

Finally, looking at the activity periods and the actual activites for the two accounts there's a few curiosities, some of which may be explained by that overlapping interest. E.g. Tails Wx returned from a long hiatus on 1 September 2021 to edit the 2021 Atlantic hurricane season article, with specific focus on Hurricane Ida. The very next day, ChrisWx starts editing the Hurricane Ida article. It was a current event that might just be the overlapping interest. Though I note that Chris Wx's activity from their account creation in 2021 (06/07/08/09) lines up with Tails Wx's inactivity.

I haven't identified any evidence of misconduct. I cannot see a reason for there to be misconduct. There's just... it's primarily that response in half-a-minute. It must have been anticipated. It is vanishingly unlikely to reload your watchlist or your talk page at the exact right moment to effect that quick of a response. I can barely reply to myself in that short a time frame. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It might actually be easier to reply in 25 seconds to a message for a different person rather than the same one. Logging in and out is generally fairly time-consuming, so you'd require two devices to do so. In addition, being in the middle of a conversation with another person one would be inclined to be in the business of frequent page reloads, and thus be able to reply with immediacy. Occam's razor and all. The real test here would be linguistic quirks shared by the two accounts and the like. J947 ‡ edits 05:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you need a second device, or could you just use two different browsers (Firefox + Chrome ; Opera Gx + Edge ; etc)? I don't have an alternate account for Wikipedia, so somebody who does might be able to answer whether two separate devices are needed, or if two browsers is sufficient. I tend to be able to do double log-ins for other things by using two browsers. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made a test account last month to explore the new user onboarding experience, and I just used a different browser. Folly Mox (talk) 13:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acknowledging that I have worked with/crossed paths with both accounts actually often (with ChrisWx on my talk page in the last 3 days), but I can tell you they are different editors. December 23, 2023 actually confirms that. From 23:01, 23 December 2023 to 00:06, 24 December 2023, ChrisWx was working consistently on January 1982 California floods and during that time Tails Wx made an edit at 23:39, 23 December 2023 and at 23:41, 23 December 2023 related to someone's copyright violation (article & talk page edits). At 23:40, 23 December 2023, ChrisWx made an edit on the floods article. That is virtually impossible to do, even with two screens as one editor is dealing with a copyright violation and the other is adding content to an article. So you honestly just found some odd coincidences. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisWx had just posted "Happy Thanksgiving" templates to a few other user talk pages, including TailsWx's, just before receiving the message from TailsWx, and the reply was made using ReplyTool, which autogenerates an edit summary. I'm not convinced 25 seconds is an implausible response time. Folly Mox (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, ChrisWx has used Huggle and User:Ingenuity/AntiVandal.js, a similar quick-response RCP script that allows the user to perform rollbacks and escalating warnings in a single keypress. They're probably used to very quick responses. And what if ChrisWx and TailsWx were in the same Discord chat at the time? It's a good catch, this 25 second timestamp difference, and an interesting find, but I'm pretty sure it's wholly benign, even if something these old fingers of mine couldn't manage. Folly Mox (talk) 13:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer wholly benign but noticeably odd coincidences to any other outcome. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think its unlikely that the accounts are operated by the same person. First off, the usernames: I doubt a sockmaster would use such a similar name if they knew anything about Wikipedia and WP:DUCK. I'll note that both accounts have been renamed (Severestorm28 to Sarrail to Tails Wx, Chrispanda to ChrisWx), which in both cases suggests a new user unhappy with their original name. I'll also highlight the difference in spacing (Tails Wx vs ChrisWx), which is a possible sign of different individuals.
Another interesting editing interaction is this series of edits ([1] [2] [3]). The time between edits one and two is 10 seconds, and the span between two and three is 22 seconds. The fact that Tails' edit is sandwiched between a Twinkle revert and warn by Chris would make this very difficult to pull off for one person. See this tool for their last 1000 edits together. Schminnte [talk to me] 20:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a tool I haven't seen before and looks useful, albeit a touch limited, for checking for overlapping editing periods. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Side conversation[edit]

Replying to @Cremastra: here because I don't want to clutter up the page. But yes, someone should contact TnS for a credible threat. I've never had what I consider to be a particularly credible threat. But just by posting that comment, I had 45 attempts to log into my account last night. Whatever. My password is an entire sentence. It's just people trying to be annoying. At some level, it's the internet, and if you don't get trolled a little then you're probably not doing a very good job.

I'm totally a believer that many hands make for light work. I'd rather have 1,000 sysops doing five actions a day than five doing 1,000. Obviously nothing here is WP:COMPULSORY, outside something like WP:ADMINACCT. But there is some level of assumed burden in maintaining an open community. GMGtalk 14:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had 45 attempts to log into my account last night. My brother in Christ you didn't piss of a person, you pissed off a platoon.[FBDB] Mr rnddude (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amateurs. I had 162 attempts last night. Banks Irk (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Listen here Mister Banks Irk. If we're having a pissing contest, I'll have you know, I have beautiful smart people, some of the best people. They come to me with tears and tell me, "That's the longest piss I've ever seen in a contest." Smart people. Good people. They come to you and they say things with words. And trust me, they know piss. I know piss. Pissing, pissed off, pissed on. I'm basically the smartest person you've ever known. GMGtalk 16:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that it's, "Sir, that's the longest piss I've ever seen in a contest" Banks Irk (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you don't mind my asking, but 45 attempts exactly did you say? I had exactly that number a few days ago, and no idea what prompted it. Weird coincidence? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are folks that try to log in to participants at RFA. The talk pages of RFAs past are replete with threads like this with !voters expressing similar concerns. Primefac (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I'm assuming someone runs a bot that just tries the most common passwords. So at the very least, make your password a sentence. It's not super hard to remember, and makes it so that someone would need a zillion tries to brute force your account. GMGtalk 12:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even better, hand over control of your account to me and you won't have to remember your password at all! (applies especially to any admins, crats, CU's, and Jimbo, who are especially vulnerable to password cracking). AryKun (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just an fyi, it's possible to brute force entire words relatively easily, so you might want to replace a few characters in that sentence with some non-letter character, or badly misspell a word, or something, to make it more secure. -- asilvering (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where does one check this number?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One can set a notification at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo for logins from unfamiliar devices and/or failed logins. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes! Already have that set. I guess no one is tryna hax0r me. I am too lowly, just a crusty wikifossil.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Tails_Wx&oldid=1193266087"