Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Sdkb

Discussion of Homeostasis07's Oppose
-Ad Orientem (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC) Is there any more which needs to be said on these subjects? BusterD (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose The first time I interacted with Sdkb was during this discussion, where he seemed completely dismissive of the entire WP:TFA process--didn't care that FAs were promoted on their quality alone and didn't care that TFAs were scheduled months in advance. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 20:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't usually respond to oppose !votes, but your logic/train of thought here is giving very much 'Pepe Silvia' vibes, and admins don't automatically get CheckUser rights, it's a completely separate right... GiantSnowman 20:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This looks like an overblown content dispute arising from Marilyn Manson; in reviewing it, I see nothing objectionable about the candidate's behavior. I would also note that after interacting with editors on one subject, I have from time to time checked out their contributions and seen what else they're up to, sometimes resulting in me editing a page they have recently edited. Unless you are willing to share your evidence of off-wiki malfeasance with the appropriate forum (or already have), I don't think it's right to cast aspersions like this. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * SDKB had edited several hundred articles since their last contribution to Marilyn Manson, and it would not have been noticeable from their contributions page. I have ignored their off-site behavior for quite a long time, but now is indeed the time for ArbCom to investigate. Compiling now. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 21:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Crat note - administrators do not gain the CheckUser role. Whilst someone who has an administrator role can get the CheckUser role on another avenue, it is not bundled into this toolset.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To clarify 's final position in that discussion—in which multiple admins and editors supported SDKB's position and literally none Homeostasis07's—they apologise[d] for the trouble [they] caused, had a deep sense of shame and regret, would not have nominated it in the first place, and was sorry for all the headaches [they] clearly caused to everyone. It's unfortunate that their current 'oppose' rests on a somewhat imaginary discussion, to put it mildly, or at least one which never took place in the way it has been portrayed here. Cheers,  ——Serial  15:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Replying since I've been made aware the diff concerns me personally. I am copying part of the response to 's kind and diligent question on my talk page, with some additions to provide additional context.
 * did not communicate with me off-wiki about the Manson edit. Sometimes I've edited articles on controversial musicians after seeing news about them online or discussion regarding the situation in reddit/other forums (e.g. Till Lindemann of rock band Rammstein after I saw a post on r/all about him). That's probably the case here as well. The edits in question were a long time ago so I can't remember exactly what led me to make them, but I can assure with certainty that Sdkb did not communicate with me off-wiki about the article, the dispute in question, or in any way induce me to edit the article on their behalf. For the record, the only off-wiki communication I've had with Sdkb has been through the unofficial enwiki discord, which I joined on the 24th of February, 2022 (link to screenshot), months after the linked diff. I have found no email from them. There are no other ways we could have contacted each other off-wiki. Shame on you,, for assuming bad faith on my part and not bothering to ask me about it even if your concern for Sdkb's candidacy is well-meaning. This is especially the case when I very publicly am going through immense amounts of stress and can barely find myself to edit in quiet corners of the wiki. I would've been glad to cooperate and provide any information you might've seen as relevant. Your behaviour regarding editors you've had disputes with in the past is disgraceful and I wish you improve your conduct in the future. Holding grudges and creating unnecessary drama will only see you eventually blocked or banned. Find it in your heart to assume good faith even in those editors you dislike or even loath.Now let me return to the quiet corner of wiki my brain can handle and please never interact with me or mention me again. Hope you have a good rest of the week, the weather is nice, and life is kind to you. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 22:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * When are the going to deal with this oppose? It contains utterly unsubstantiated aspersions of meat puppetry and alleges without any evidence that Sdkb engages in off-wiki canvassing to edit war. If this were filed as a report at SPI, it would have been summarily deleted as baseless. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Homeostasis07 has indicated they are sending evidence to the Arbitration Committee; if that is not received then I see no reason why the problematic content would not be struck. Primefac (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Additionally, it will be reviewed when this discussion is concluded. How about we let things run their course? I can promise you that if there is anything to discuss at that time, we will definitely discuss it. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 17:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If there's one thing I can guarantee, it's that we will discuss it. We'll discuss it until we're blue in the face. We'll discuss it until it's been discussed to death. As to anything actually happening, anything actually being done... in the meantime, unfounded allegations should just be allowed to "run their course".  ——Serial  17:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to get all hot-and-bothered about it. Please take a step back and cool off a bit. I'm very familiar with unfounded allegations having had that happen to me here in the past. Nothing is getting swept under the rug. Chill. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 17:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please do not patronize me Nihonjoe, or make unwanted personal remarks. The fact that you've been the subject of such allegations in the past makes your current unwillingness to act more unfair on the candidate, not less. And stop pinging me to a thread I am clearly watching.  ——Serial  18:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not patronizing you. I'm saying you need to chill. We're waiting to see if this editor can provide the information to back up the claims. If they don't, then that will be taken into account when the discussion is closed by one of us. They've said they have the information, so how about you give them time to back up their claims rather than demanding action right now. This discussion closes in a couple days, so it's not like you're going to be out much time. There's nothing unfair about letting things play out. If you can't see that, then you really do need to step back and chill. As for pinging you, I only did it because you were doing it as well. I considered it a courtesy. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 19:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As one of the accused, I think it is also worth noting that Homeostasis07's claims are neither meaningfully affecting the RfA nor are being taken very seriously by the community at large. If that was not the case, I could see the point of this being an urgent and time-sensitive matter. However, as it stands I don't think waiting a couple of days to see if they can provide evidence will cause significant harm to any party involved. With the amount of eyes the average RfA has, especially for a well-known and socially active editor like Sdkb, I am certain that the community will deal with Homeostasis' behaviour appropriately once the RfA concludes. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 20:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, telling people you do not know except through a screen to "chill out" because in your unfounded opinion they're "hot-and-bothered about it" is the absolute definition. If you cannot see that, you should probably reconsider giving any editor advice in future. One should empathise before one can advise.  ——Serial  20:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Homeostasis07 Please regard the following as a piece of friendly advice. I am not going to address any possible evidence you may have sent to Arbcom. However, if you have not sent any and do not currently plan to, I would gently suggest you strike your oppose and move on. Making allegations of serious misconduct in an RfA generally needs to be supported with evidence. If none is produced, you may find your own conduct the subject of inquiry. On which note, I will have no further comment on this matter. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I support Ad Orientem's suggestion here. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 19:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * FWIW, with regard to the question raised above "When are the going to deal with this oppose?" -- I would like to remind everyone here that this RfA is currently at 215/1/1. I don't think this oppose is going to make any difference in the overall consensus. Y'all can of course do what you want, but y'all might want to consider whether it's worth expending a ton of energy debating an oppose that's seemingly unlikely to have any effect on the outcome.  ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 21:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you're correct that this oppose didn't make much of a difference in this RfA. But I do think this is one manifestation of the phenomenon that RfA has become a venue where our normal behavioral expectations don't seem to apply when discussing nominees. That makes it hard to ask people to run for RfA, which I think we can all agree is a bad outcome. We should be trying to fight this phenomenon whenever possible, and I think the bureaucrats have not done well at this RfA in that regard. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 22:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This exact concern is being addressed in what has, so far, been a very productive discussion at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. Got anything to add there?  City o f  Silver  22:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * But the result of the RFA is not the only issue here. We say a lot about ourselves - and not in a good way - when our reaction to unsubstantiated accusations is “leave it public until we see if it’s true”, not “remove it, and it can be re-added if it turns out to be true”. What we’re saying to new editors, old editors, and observers is “this is not a healthy online community, and it might be best if you didn’t stick around”. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, this comment is what some would consider a frivolous use of the @Bureaucrats template - a pointless ping that doesn't require us responding. Something to keep in mind for the future. Primefac (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My apologies; I didn't even realize until you just mentioned that I pinged y'all with that quote. Unintentional on my end, but you're correct. ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 07:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I figured as much, it was more for general comment than anything (the hidden ping to you was probably a bit of overkill). Primefac (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have redacted both the original text and pulled the original vote until the user can form an oppose within community guidelines, or rise up to the level of community norms and properly substantiate the allegations at the correct venue (which I doubt will happen and more why I moved forward with the action). -- Amanda (she/her)  02:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have restored the vote - this action is out of process. It is one oppose and we should all leave it be unless the voter changes their mind. Lightburst (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to urge you to self-revert here. Per the 2015 RfA reforms process crats are empowered to make clerking actions such as this. It is not considered out of process. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is at least the third RFA where Lightburst has issued this exact threat: if they don't get their way, they'll vote to oppose. Since the strike and redaction by User:AmandaNP were made as a bureaucrat action, this is a good test case: the 'crats' reaction to this will show if they can be trusted to clerk RFAs and prevent this sort of disruption.  City o f  Silver  03:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It is also the second RfA where Lightburst has reverted out of process to restore a comment at RfA – they reverted a removal of a comment that baselessly suggested that a candidate had violated WP:CHILDPROTECT. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If you have an objection to the crat action, you can appeal it to BN as I said on the main RfA. I can't control you and your vote, but I'll echo that this pointiness and toxicity is why RfA is such a problem. -- Amanda (she/her)  03:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have participated in so many RFAs and have watched majority voters erasing, blocking, badgering and marginalizing the minority opposition. So here we are again. With apologies to Sdkb, I will move my vote to oppose. What a shame that you all cannot let this single voter who is in good standing - vote. I am not being pointy, but I am voting oppose now so that the vote is accurate. If RFA is toxic it is because of the out of process vote rigging and this wall of text. Lightburst (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Like I said, how the bureaucrats handle this ongoing disruption by Lightburst will serve as a really useful test case. Had this RFA been actively and fairly clerked, their promise in a previous message to break policy would have gotten them p-blocked from this page on sight. (Because are they disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point? People! They're opposing the request for adminship of a candidate they believe is qualified because they want to fight about an issue that, given phrases like "one oppose" and "single voter," they don't even care about!) I hope the bureaucrats don't let this opportunity go to waste.  City o f  Silver  04:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could write an article together? Like I told you in the last RFA, just vote and move on. That is what I do unless I see chicanery. You have been obsessing in this RFA and in the last: just let it go. I will move on to writing articles and promoting DYK nominations now and I will check back on this RFA tomorrow to see that the vote is still accurate. Sdkb will be a fine administrator. I am sorry that the majority insists on a perfect 100% vote. Lightburst (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Nobody is insisting on a perfect 100% vote. What people are insisting on is adherence to sitewide guidelines like not casting aspersions, as Homeostasis07 has done, and not doing stupid things to make a point, as you have done with your silly oppose. "Vote and move on" indeed - what is your oppose except the precise opposite of that? &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is my take. First people began poking around the Homeostasis07 rationale. They then investigated the voter and could not find that Homeostasis07 was a troll or a troublemaker. Then someone took the entire Homeostasis07 voting rationale and moved it here so that it just said "Oppose Homeostasis07" in the RFA. Then editors began to express outrage and a discussion here and at BN. Then someone decided to strike the Homeostasis07 vote because obviously the majority agrees to remove the lone opposition voice. My problem is that we do know that Homeostasis07 wants to vote oppose, but we have disenfranchised them. We have guidelines which tell us that anyone can the aspersion - we do not have guidelines that say we should strike a vote. I said this in Village Pump but will repeat it here as something to consider: Imagine going to the polls and they are manned by a whole town that all voted for the same candidate. And they ask you who are you voting for. You tell them you are not voting for their choice and they ask why? Now imagine having to explain your reasons to everyone in the the town. And when the majority disagree with your reasons they find ways to strike your vote. I could not restore the Homeostasis07 vote, so my vote is now a placeholder for this editor who had the majority cancel their vote. I hope that explains why I am doing this even if you do not agree. Lightburst (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your retelling completely skips over the entire part where Homeo's oppose contained unevidenced accusations of serious misconduct against other editors. Why, why, would you defend this conduct? Why would you try to cast this as if it were trying to silence an oppose vote? And why do you care so little about the editors who are on the receiving end of these unevidenced accusations? Levivich (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We have a remedy for that: . I defend the right for editors to vote. We can strike the aspersion and leave the vote. I see that another oppose has voted, and for the same reason. I am happy to strike my oppose and I would think the other editor would strike too if we could agree to unstrike the vote of Homeostasis07. It is obvious to me that they opposed based on personal interactions with Sdkb but that is their right. I have to travel today, so I will be offline soon but it would be good if I could go back to my strong support for the candidate before I leave, and perhaps the other voter will as well. FTR I care about the candidate and I care about the minority voter and the two are not mutually exclusive. Lightburst (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, in principle, about striking the PA and keeping the vote. But, if the only rationale of a vote is a PA, why keep the vote? I think it's perfectly rational to say strike the vote if all the vote is based on is a PA. People who think the whole vote should be stricken are not trying to silence the opposition, and it's not fair to accuse them of such. If you want people to see your point of view, you need to see other people's points of view, too. Righteousness doesn't suit anybody. Levivich (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we should allow votes exactly as the support column does. Making people explain their votes is a convention that leads to friction and more. I did not protest when the voter's rationale was moved here. I protested when they had their vote struck based on the opinion of those in the 200+ who voted the other way. Also Fram struck my vote at some point. There is no reason for us to campaign or filibuster at the ballot box. It is vote tampering and it is regularly done by those in the majority. I think that you and I agree on a great many things. It is good that we find areas of agreement. Lightburst (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to get into the specifics of your argument, because we could disagree all day long and I'm not here to badger you. I just want to remain accountable as I'm required to do on two points. To be absolutely clear, I was not in support of striking your vote. You are entitled to an opinion just like anyone else, regardless of what I think about it, and it didn't excessively violate core community values/policies. The reason I went for striking the vote (and again, providing the opportunity for the user to restore it without my involvement) is that striking an allegation is insufficient. Now I could have used PA removed, but then I would have broken the integrity of the comment left and weakened without context for reviewing parties, and I thought that was not ethical, and that's why I proceeded the way I did. -- Amanda (she/her)  02:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My impression is that it's generally accepted that the 'crats can and do weight votes differently and can even disregard votes entirely if they so choose, both when a single 'crat closes an RfA and during 'crat chats. I somewhat see a 'crat striking a vote before the RfA is closed can be more open and transparent, if done correctly (whatever that is), since the person who made that vote could then try to address the crats concerns, it if they choose, as opposed to it being potentially privately disregarded during closing. The oppose the 'crat struck was still in the RfA body just the vote count was made closer to how a closing 'crat would have seen it anyway. Skynxnex (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Pulling up City of Silver's xtools overview feels like a cheap move. What would be the point of even looking at that when you're discussing with them an issue that has nothing to do with their content creation or lack thereof? Sincerely, Novo TapeMy Talk Page 16:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "Like I told you in the last RFA, just vote and move on." I, like literally every human being who has ever lived, don't respond particularly well to being bossed around. Why not ask me? "That is what I do unless I see chicanery." Letter for letter, this is exactly what I do too.
 * If you really want to know, Lightburst included that link to prove that my lack of content creation and my contentious presence at these RFAs mean I'm just here for the drama, not to actually improve anything.  City o f  Silver  16:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @City of Silver, while that thought did cross my mind, please stick to AGFing till they've had a chance to respond. I understand that their comment could easily (and perhaps should) be considered rude and it's only natural to feel insulted, but tensions need not rise higher. Sincerely, Novo TapeMy Talk Page 16:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Lightburst has responded and stated it was cheap. Sincerely, Novo TapeMy Talk Page  17:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies City of Silver. You have been rather hostile to me in the last RFA and this one. My comment followed your desire to have me blocked for reinstating an editor's minority opposition. It was cheap of me. Lightburst (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's fine. I really am only crabby about what's being said and done. Had you never participated in this past your vote but another editor had contributed the same way you did, I would have been just as hostile to them.  City o f  Silver  18:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. Please come back here in a month when I'll be back for more.  City o f  Silver  18:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We've already moved on to the customary post-bad-oppose discussion of RFA reforms, now at VPR. Levivich (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It even made it to the WP:BN. I truly am impressed. And a little saddened. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  20:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A sure sign that RFA is broken is that even the unanimous ones can have more drama than several ANI threads combined. Levivich (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Ensuring an accurate tally
The closing bureaucrat should manually amend the automatic tally to discount the two apparent "oppose !votes".

I call them "apparent" oppose !votes because although they are placed in the opposers' section and prefaced with oppose, they don't actually express any opposition to the candidate. Lightburst explicitly calls Sdkb a "strong candidate" and notes their apparent opposition is "meaningless"; Carrite congratulates Sdkb and wishes them well for the future. Both admit their motivation for writing their comments is unrelated to their opinion on Sdkb.

The final tally is intended to reflect the number of editors who expressed support, opposition and neutrality to the RfA candidate – not merely the amount of numbered comments in the support, oppose, and neutral sections. – Teratix ₵ 15:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * This won't be done because they don't affect the outcome. Even in a case where a crat chat was going to occur, these WP:POINTy votes would just be ignored anyways since they are disruptive. Sdkb is still going to become an admin, albeit with 99% support rather than 100%. In the grand scheme of things, those two votes don't matter and those individuals just tarnished themselves by standing up for someone who made unsubstantiated meat puppetry allegations. Hurricane Noah (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My position is not that these comments are facetious or disruptive oppose !votes. My position is that these comments aren't actually oppose !votes at all, despite appearances. It's therefore merely a technical matter: the tally produced by the template happens not to correspond to the actual number of editors who expressed opposition to Sdkb's candidacy, and it's a simple matter of manually fixing the tally. I'm not saying the comments need to be struck. – Teratix ₵ 16:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * They chose to oppose the candidate in protest to a bureaucrat action. Whether or not it's actual expressed opposition to the candidate is besides the point. I can tell you right now this is a no go... none of the bureaucrats will action it since what they did isn't against policy. Making the votes not count would just piss those editors off even further. Hurricane Noah (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * They chose to oppose the candidate Well, no, they've chosen to make some comments that happen to appear in the oppose section, but from a plain and straightforward reading don't actually express any opposition to the candidate. Whether or not it's actual expressed opposition to the candidate is besides the point. I would say it's absolutely the point – the entire purpose of an RfA is for other editors to express their views on whether the candidate is suitable for adminship or not. – Teratix ₵ 16:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * RFA is not a vote; it is a consensus-building process. The numeric tally acts as a visual metric of the progress of the RFA and a guide for the bureaucrats, but at the end of the day the user will either be an admin or not, regardless of the specific percentage shown on the page. As such, we do not need to "adjust" the numbers because someone decided to throw in a joke !vote or put in a meritless Oppose. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand that Teratix's suggestion to adjust the tally is unlikely to be accepted, and the two !votes also probably won't be struck. That outcome is understandable, as a matter of allowing this dispute to die out rather than perpetuating it and since it obviously doesn't come close to affecting the result. I can certainly live with this outcome as a matter of practicality; but for what it's worth, I think that if considered as a pure matter of logic, Teratix's position would have merit. The two !votes are questionable not because they are poorly reasoned oppose votes, but because they are not oppose votes in any meaningful sense. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to comment here to note that I did read this request prior to closing, and I understand where Teratix is coming from: the two non-stricken opposes are indeed nothing to do with the candidate. Traditionally, though, when an RfA is closed, the tallies are not adjusted to account for that. (And of course a candidate who passes at 99% is every bit an administrator as one who passes at 100%.) 28bytes (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)