Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Sdkb

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.

Discussion of Homeostasis07's Oppose

Moved from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sdkb

-Ad Orientem (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Much more to be said regarding off-site conduct. I was provided evidence that Sdkb has been using off-site means of communication to rope other users into edit warring on their behalf. As just one, albeit minor, on-site example: a user leaves a kitten on Sdkb's talk page for an unrelated matter. Less than 12 hours later – presumably after that user came back from a nap – that user makes their first and only edit to an article to edit its lead to Sdkb's preferred version. I am horrified at the prospect of Sdkb being granted CheckUser rights, considering what I've seen. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 20:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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... Giant Snowman 20:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

To clarify Homeostasis07'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)[reply]

Replying since I've been made aware the diff concerns me personally. I am copying part of the response to City of Silver's kind and diligent question on my talk page, with some additions to provide additional context.

Sdkb 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, Homeostasis07, 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 )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 22:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When are the @Bureaucrats: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@Nihonjoe: 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)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 20:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
I support Ad Orientem's suggestion here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, with regard to the question raised above "When are the @Bureaucrats: 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. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@L235: 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 of Silver 22:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]