Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sdkb

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Sdkb

Final (265/2/0); closed as successful by 28bytes (talk) at 18:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination

Sdkb (talk · contribs) – Dedicated, talented, friendly, knowledgeable, and prolific, Sdkb is one of our best editors and would make a fantastic administrator.

Sdkb has been editing Wikipedia seriously for over five years, since mid-2018. Their Wikipedia contributions in that time have run the gamut. Their content work is impeccable—most impressively at Pomona College, which they almost singlehandedly brought to FA, but there are many more articles I could mention. In addition to content work, Sdkb has a knack for doing the work nobody else wants to do, often when it's most important to do it. Sdkb is a talented technical contributor and runs SdkbBot. A friendly face at the Teahouse, you can often find Sdkb patiently fielding questions from new users. Speaking of new users, I've seen Sdkb work very hard to improve the editing experience for newcomers, and I'm not the only one—when Sdkb received the Editor of the Week last year, the citation highlighted their hard work in streamlining a lot of the templates used to welcome new editors.

I now want to take a moment to touch on the less measurable qualities that make a good sysop. I have watched for many years as Sdkb has developed as an editor and as a maintainer of this project, and Sdkb has grown to evince precisely the kind of judgment, character, and temperament I like to see in our administrators. When we've talked over the years, Sdkb has shown a willingness to stop, reflect, and change their mind, as well as an ability to thoughtfully consider and engage with new ideas and arguments.

Sdkb is a real joy to work alongside. It's quite a privilege to present Sdkb to the community for adminship. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Co-nomination statement

For every RfA participant out there who wants to see a candidate with a strong content record, I am thrilled to present Sdkb, a longtime editor who weighs in at over 40 DYKs, a good article for Jean Walton, a featured list for List of Pomona College people, and a featured article for Pomona College that reaches nearly 6,000 words. Much of their work runs the gamut on Pomona, from its alumni to its administration and faculty to related student organizations and even sister schools. But they've also taken on lots of other topics, including folk music, journalism, the arts, and various Eastern United States locations.

Now, lots of candidates can and do come through here with solid content records such as this one, where count and breadth alone make the candidate's content bona fides quite strong. But in terms of real quality writing, their FA of Pomona College is in a class by itself – quite literally, it is the only FA on an institution of higher education. Writing an FA in an area where no current article has that distinction requires a certain clarity of purpose and creativity in content; these are mental muscles that normal Wikipedia contributing doesn't require an editor to flex, but Sdkb has those talents in spades. In our conversations, I've always found them to be diligent, civil, and incredibly sharp – when we sparred over a niche application of sourcing guidelines for DYK, they brought a clear and convincing argument with evidence to back it up, and in the end, I was persuaded that they were right and that their article was good to go. A level-headed, dedicated, and, as my fine fellow nominators have laid out, all-around talented editor. With that, I am happy to offer Sdkb's name for the mop :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Co-nomination statement

I first encountered Sdkb in late 2020, seeing their name in edit requests and bot approvals. Since early on in our interactions, I've been struck by their deep attention towards the experiences of new editors, shown from their work improving our introduction pages and the article wizard, to over 700 edits at the Teahouse. In every interaction I've found them polite and conscientious, clueful about policy, and able to communicate clearly—all important qualities in admins, who often form the first impression of our community for new users.

As a technically minded editor, Sdkb has spearheaded high-visibility changes like improvements to the welcome template and talk page banners, but they are also happy to work on less glamorous maintenance tasks, like responding to edit requests, improving template readability, and operating their bot. Though I have interacted with Sdkb most in these areas, I know them best as a truly well-rounded editor, and as an admin, I expect them to help out with exactly these kinds of important but understated maintenance tasks that make up so much of the admin workload. It's my pleasure to co-nominate them for adminship. — The Earwig (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination, with gratitude to my three nominators as well as everyone else who has helped lay the foundation for my candidacy. I’d also like to thank the community for taking the time to review and evaluate my contributions. The standard disclosures can be found on my user page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:55, 9 February 2024 (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: Fundamentally, I'm interested because I support Wikipedia's aspiration to build an encyclopedia that makes information accessible to everyone, and the admin tools would allow me to help out. I have been approached a few times over the years with nomination offers, and I feel I’m at a point now where I’m ready to expand my work into administrative areas to help out with some of the sizable backlogs there.

I have worked in many different non-admin areas, seeking variety and searching for areas of need. I will bring this knowledge base and approach to my work as an admin, exploring different tasks — dabbling cautiously at first while I familiarize myself — to figure out where I can be the most useful. More concretely, I could see myself initially using the tools to close XfDs and other discussions that require admin action (here's an example of a close I made), making edits to full-protected templates when consensus has been established (e.g. stuff like this), viewing deleted contributions of newcomers seeking help at the Teahouse, and applying my professional copy editing background to correct errors on the Main Page (e.g. stuff like this on this TFA, or this on this TFA).

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I am most proud of my work to improve help resources for newcomers. To document the full scope of the world's knowledge, we desperately need to expand and diversify our ranks. I regularly respond to queries as an active host at the Teahouse, but my efficacy is limited when offering personalized help to individuals because I can only assist one editor at a time. Therefore, I have focused on improving help pages and templates that can reach thousands of editors. In 2020, I proposed changes to the standard welcome template that simplified it to make it less overwhelming. I also did a full revamp to improve the roughly 60 pages in the Help:Introduction tutorial series. More recently, I have collaborated with the WMF's Growth team to inform the development of their features to aid newcomers. For instance, my vision for a better Article Wizard is being used as a model at their project on article creation for new editors.

My second area of focus is usability and templates, another realm with the potential for large-scale impact. I've launched successful proposals on things like revamping the left sidebar, merging {{Auto Archive Notice}} into {{Talk Header}} (i.e. why this banner is no longer cluttering talk pages), removing portal links from the top of the Main Page, and streamlining the wording of the universal editnotice. I've worked on numerous editnotices and template documentations, revamped talk page messages like {{uw-ewsoft}}, and added automatic short descriptions to the 70,000 transclusions of {{Infobox song}}.

Lastly, in the area of content, my biggest achievement is taking Pomona College through FAC. Colleges are complex and multifaceted topics, which makes them hard to improve to FA level. When I nominated it, no article on a contemporary higher education institution had passed FAC in more than a decade, which compounded the challenge — since there were no good precedents, the reviewers and I had to formulate and agree on standards for what college FAs should look like at every turn. I also sometimes help out at FAC (Inuit clothing, Red panda, and Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication are examples of my reviews), and I was one of the main editors at COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. I have about 40 DYK credits, a mix of Pomona-related topics and articles in politics, journalism, sociology, the arts, and other assorted areas. I have also written a handful of essays.

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: I find that heated responses to a situation almost never help, so I avoid them. Since I care about Wikipedia, I occasionally find it stressful when I believe the project is making a mistake, but I can always put on some classical music and take a step back to breathe, and I retain faith in the consensus process to work everything out in the end.

Given how actively I edit, including in controversial areas, I've naturally encountered conflict every so often. I find it's helpful to stay calm and adhere to WP:CIVIL and other guidance designed to minimize conflicts. Being human, I haven't always lived up to the standards I set for myself, but on the whole I like to think I'm fairly good at de-escalation. Some examples where I think I interacted well with editors disagreeing with me are here, here, here, here, and here.

---

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 Ganesha811

4. Are there any areas of adminship you do not plan to participate in, due to unfamiliarity or lack of technical knowledge? If you later decided you wanted to help in these areas, what would be your plan to become an effective admin in those areas? —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

A: Although I'm struggling to think of any area I would not be at least open to exploring, there are still plenty of realms with which I am unfamiliar. SPI and UAA are two that come to mind. I also have yet to learn the Lua programming language used in modules. My approach when entering a new area is to go gradually. I'll start by reading relevant guidance and looking at examples (which carries zero risk because I'm not making any edits). From there, I'll start participating in more minor ways (perhaps coding a very simple module or actioning a UAA report that looks very non-borderline), consulting with knowledgeable editors as needed. Once I've done that for a while and feel comfortable, I'll progress to more major or difficult actions (e.g. coding a more complex or high-usage module, or making a call on a borderline UAA report). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from MaterialsPsych

5. Hello Sdkb. Thank you for volunteering to stand at RfA and seek out adminship. I have been leaning towards supporting you, but I came across something in your user rights log that I would like to learn more about. You were first granted temporary template editor rights on May 6, 2020, by Primefac. Approximately 48 hours later, these rights were removed by JzG, seemingly with cause. I then see that you were re-granted the rights a few months later by L235. I have dug into this a bit to try to apprise myself of what happened (and I'm a little surprised you didn't mention this event in your Q3), but I would like to hear directly from you. In your view, what exactly led to your template editor rights being removed? Do you feel the removal of your rights was justified? (These can be considered two separate questions for the purpose of the limit.) MaterialsPsych (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

A: That was a stressful experience I had when I was a novice editor. It was a complicated situation, but the essence of it is that, after a VPR discussion found consensus to overhaul the standard welcome template, I attempted to roll out the new design to 17 welcome templates that styled themselves as variations on the standard welcome. An editor who had opposed the redesign opened an ANI thread asserting that I had made an undiscussed mass template change, omitting any mention of the VPR discussion or a relevant follow-up. Others in the thread were understandably alarmed, and an admin closed it a little less than two hours later — before I had seen it — and removed my template editor bit. He also attempted to roll back the edits but unfortunately misclicked and ended up also reverting a large portion of all the template edits I'd ever made. I offered my perspective when I saw what had happened the next day, and although the tenor of the discussion changed after that, the original close was left in place. A few admins later expressed regret about how it all unfolded and my TE bit was restored, giving me a second chance for which I'm grateful.

Looking back on it all now, nearly four years later, there were several lessons I took away. The first was that the importance of consensus and level of caution needed to make a given change scales with its potential impact. A change to 17 templates, even lesser-used ones, should have been discussed explicitly first; inferring consensus from prior discussions was not sufficient. Second, once consensus was established, I should have linked to it in my edit summary, which could have prevented the edits from being misconstrued. I'm a much more cautious editor these days — when I use template editor rights, I like to establish a (typically silent) consensus on talk even for very minor tweaks and then link to it in my edit summary, e.g. here. Lastly, I should have let the matter rest sooner, rather than asking for the ANI thread to be reclosed — there's only so much one can expect of that noticeboard.

As for your second question, I think that the ANI participants were certainly justified in being spooked by the edits, given the limited information they had, and that pulling TPE was an understandable response. However, I do wish that the thread had not been closed so quickly — absent extraordinary circumstances, editors should have a right of reply to defend themselves against criticism. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Chetsford

6. Hi Sdkb. First, thank you very much for making yourself available. Occasionally, in Articles for Deletion discussions pertaining to companies, editors invoke a liberal reading of WP:PRODUCTREV that presumes many product reviews are WP:ROUTINE. If an article you created, Photofeeler, were nominated for deletion, how would you defend its WP:N using only the four references present as of your last substantive edit?

A: I created that article five years ago, so it's been a while since I've reviewed it. Starting from a broad perspective, the relevant notability guideline is WP:NORG, which is commonly understood as a stricter version of GNG. That's for very good reason — as I encounter all the time at the Teahouse, there are countless companies seeking publicity through having a Wikipedia article, and to maintain our neutrality it's important we have rules constraining that pressure.

Looking through the sources, all four provide significant coverage, so the main question is whether or not they are sufficiently independent and reliable:

• SnapMunk is a mixed bag. On the positive side, the article includes critical commentary (beginning from we're not quite sure what that all means) and mentions a competitor (Rate My Picture), both signs that the author is writing independently rather than just republishing a press release. The author is also named, which shows a measure of transparency. On the negative side, her bio does not include any meaningful journalistic credentials, the site's about page contains mainly platitudes and lacks elements like a corrections policy, and I cannot find outside sources attesting to it having any reputation for accuracy.
• Good is similar. On the positive side, the writer is named and indicates that he tested the company's product. The publication also has a Wikipedia article that indicates that notable professional journalists have been involved with it and that it has won a National Magazine Award. On the negative side, the article ends with (H/T Photofeeler) (a common indication that it was based off a press release), the author's bio includes no meaningful journalistic credentials, and the site appears to lack an about page entirely.
• KTLA is from a large local TV station, a category that often includes passable but not sterling sources. The reviewer indicates he tried the product.
• Online Profile Pros is a blog post from a company selling dating coaching, and appears designed to capture search traffic. Although it does mention a competitor, I would not consider it reliable.

Overall, I think a case for notability could be made using SnapMunk and KTLA, but it's a pretty weak one. Other, better sources would be needed for me to create something like it today. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Chetsford

7. Hello, again! Here, you removed [1] a notability template placed by Onel5969 to an article you created, Ralph Lyman. In the edit summary you wrote: "reported obituary in the Los Angeles Times and a 137-page biography is enough to pass GNG; I also strongly suspect he held an endowed chair, meeting WP:NPROF criterion 5". In a hypothetical situation in which this article were nominated for deletion, do you believe the current sourcing – the LA Times obit, a self-published book, and two sentences on the Pomona College website – would establish WP:SIGCOV for WP:N? If not, is your strong suspicion that the subject held an endowed chair sufficient to meet our WP:V policy?

A: I created that article three years ago. The L.A. Times obituary, while not super long, reads to me as a notability-qualifying source, given that it was a reported obituary (rather than a paid one) in a reliable publication. However, the other source I cited as qualifying, the self-published book by Murphy, is not something I would consider reliable today. My thinking at the time was that, if there was enough information to write a 137-page biography of him, surely there is enough material to write an encyclopedia article. I have since come to understand better that just because information was published in the form of a book does not necessarily make it reliable, and that many self-published biographies are little more than hagiographies. My suspicion that Lyman held an endowed chair would not be persuasive at an AfD unless it was verified. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Lightburst

8. Can you provide me some context for this warning that you left at AD's talk page with no follow up?

A: I do not directly recall this interaction, but looking at it in retrospect, I don't fault AD for dismissing the warning. By violating the rules of WP:VPI, I was referring to the rule, found in the page's editnotice, that it is for developing ideas rather than !voting support or oppose. That rule exists to help differentiate it from WP:VPR, which is for concrete, actionable proposals. It has long been a small pet peeve of mine that we often don't do this differentiation particularly well. I opened the discussion being referenced by noting that I'm not looking for supports/opposes here, and reiterated the point after AD left their !vote, but they chose to retain it. In the grand scheme of things, that was extremely minor, and did not warrant the overly strong warning I gave to them; I apologize for that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Thebiguglyalien

9. In this AfD, you !voted to keep because there was "major billing in global media, easily meeting WP:EVENTCRIT #2". WP:EVENTCRIT #4 just below that says that most accidents are not notable, even if "widely reported at the time", and the subsections below this establish the expectation of widespread effects and long-term coverage beyond "a burst or spike of news reports". With all this in consideration, at what point do you believe that media coverage confers notability on an event?

A: Starting from a broad perspective, I'd say that the most essential difference between Wikipedia and a news organization is that Wikipedia endeavors to take a long-term perspective, whereas news organizations are focused on recent news. I feel this difference perhaps more acutely than most, given that as a journalist I work in both realms. (My essay Wikipedia:Build content to endure is one example of my commitment to helping Wikipedia take the long-term view.) There is a place in the world for both approaches, but the nature of human psychology means that it is a lot easier to think in the short term, and when combined with the fact that Wikipedia is built largely off of news coverage, this creates a pressure toward excessive coverage of news events.

The event notability guideline exists as an important bulwark against that pressure. Although it provides many helpful considerations, there is a bit of a paradox at its heart, as the duration of coverage is often a key factor but is impossible to know immediately after an event. Because of this, AfDs on recent current events often involve a degree of editorial judgement. Later on, the appropriate course of action often becomes clearer, as in my AfD of List of events affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Looking at the specific example you gave, 2023 Battagram cable car incident, I !voted keep because news organizations around the world, presumably reacting to its novelty, not only wrote about it but gave it major billing, sending out push alerts and featuring it on their home pages. Given that level of immediate coverage, I found it probable that there would be enough enduring coverage to meet NEVENT. I would not have found EVENTCRIT #4 a persuasive argument for deletion, given that it refers to routine kinds of news events, listing accidents as just an example, and a dangling cable car is a very non-routine kind of accident. Looking back today, I see scattered English-language follow-up reports in the weeks after the accident (from Reuters [2], The Express Tribune [3], and Dawn [4]), and there is likely further coverage in Urdu, so if the article were nominated for deletion today, I would !vote to keep.

As an administrator seeking to close XfDs, I will evaluate the consensus formed by the discussion participants rather than applying my own views, which would be inappropriate. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Andrew D.

10. "Sdkb" is the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, right? It's no big deal but, iirc, I figured this out myself and so this is a good opportunity to confirm it. Does it have some special significance for you, please?

A: Our ability to find meaning in chaos is infinite :) It actually does not refer to that, nor to anything else that someone who does not know my off-wiki identity would have the information needed to figure out. But it's cool to learn that the letters can refer to something other than a "Semantics in Data and Knowledge Bases" conference series or possibly a small (non-notable?) airport in São Paulo! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Optional questions from Robert McClenon

11. Can you please give one or more examples of your experience in conflict resolution on Wikipedia, addressing either content disputes or conduct disputes?

A: My answer to Q3 includes some examples of times that I've been involved in conflicts as a participant, and a few others have provided additional examples in their comments. Given that discussion closes are the main way we address content disputes on Wikipedia, some examples of closes I've made in more controversial topic areas are here, here, and (less seriously) here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

12. There was discussion about the conduct of a user at WP:ANI months ago, and then the user was indefinitely blocked by an admin as an ordinary single-admin action. The user has now made an unblock request on their talk page that appears to address the reasons for the block and appears valid. When, in your opinion, should you be ready to unblock the user, and when should you ask WP:AN to consider the unblock request?

A: It is a little difficult to answer a question like that in the hypothetical, as the best course of action depends on many factors specific to the circumstance. But as a general principle, I will check with the blocking admin whenever possible before reversing an action of theirs, and if there is any disagreement or other factor that makes the situation particularly sensitive, I would lean toward a broader review. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Optional questions from Red-tailed hawk

13. To what extent do you plan to deal with copyright issues as an administrator? Do you plan to involve yourself with file deletions, contributor copyright investigations, RD1 requests, or otherwise take administrative action in this area?

A: I find copyright fascinating, from the classic monkey selfie copyright dispute to recent case law like Warhol v. Goldsmith. That said, most of my recent copyright-related work has taken place on Commons, where I am collaborating with the WMF to help inform improvements to the Upload Wizard (e.g. here and here) and working through some of the challenges related to AI image generation (for instance, I recently created {{Prompt}}). I could see myself exploring some of the Wikipedia copyright tasks you list in the future — if I do, I will use the gradual/cautious approach I outlined in my answer to Q4. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

14. You identify yourself on your user page as a professional journalist. If you were to cover a specific dispute on Wikipedia as a part of your journalistic writings (for which you are paid), would you commit to recusing yourself from acting as an administrator in that same dispute? Why or why not?

A: There are two quite different types of journalism to consider here, although in both cases I would recuse myself from administrative action:

• In opinion journalism, the writer argues for their preferred stance on a topic. I would consider myself involved in any dispute I had written opinion journalism about, and would not take admin action there.
• In news journalism, the reporter is expected to have a level of remove from the topic they are covering so that they can remain objective, just as admins acting in an area are expected to have a level of remove to remain uninvolved. In that case, I would recuse myself because admin action might damage my credibility with readers who expect me to remain detached from topics I report on to preclude any possibility of a conflict of interest.

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Andrew D.

15. I see some indications that you give special attention to vital articles. This sounds good as my impression is that these are undervalued as compared with FAs, say. Please tell us more about this.

A: In an ideal world, we would serve readers best by giving attention to articles proportional to their importance. In the actual world, some topic areas benefit heavily from systemic bias while others are neglected. Additionally, the social incentives on Wikipedia, which primarily reward an editor's number of quality content nominations without regard to their importance (Million Award notwithstanding), have led to excessive attention on niche topics that are often easier to improve.

My interest in vital articles comes from its potential to help remedy this issue. While VA is hardly free of systemic bias, its top-down approach of setting quotas for different topic areas and then filling them does result in much less bias than you'd find in our article corpus as a whole, since it's comparatively easy to e.g. agree on a reasonable limit for the number of VA sports figures. Browsing the lists, it's easy to identify topic areas that are suffering from systemic bias by their lower average quality ratings. To the extent that we need to be able to measure problems in order to address them, I find VA valuable as the best measure we've got of how good a job we're doing prioritizing important content.

VA certainly has issues. Historically it was bogged down by debates over which articles should be listed at which level (exacerbated by the fact that there is no universal consensus on how to define importance), rather than on improving those articles. But I would encourage anyone looking for tasks to browse the lists or the article alerts to find good work to do. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from DaxServer

16. Do you disagree with any of our policies or guidelines or any other established/informal general practises? If so, which and why?

A: As a whole, I find Wikipedia's policies and guidelines a remarkable (if at times bloated) set of documents, and I wholeheartedly endorse their core principles. Closer to the edges, whenever I encounter something on a guidance page that I feel should be different, I'll propose to change it (see here for a minor recent example).

Regarding other practices, one thing I wish was different was the way we indicated the good/featured status of an article on its page. As editors, we instantly see the gold star/green plus sign in the upper-right corner, but from my (admittedly anecdotal) research, most readers do not even notice the icons, let alone understand their significance. Because of this, they are deprived of a valuable piece of information they could be using to help decide how much to trust what they're reading. I find that a shame given how much effort we put into designating quality content. I would like us to consider alternatives like the approach of Danish Wikipedia, where the icons are placed directly after the article title (like this), where they are much more likely to be noticed. When the community last considered this issue four years ago, there was no consensus to try out a different design — some editors in opposition thought readers already noticed the icons, and others argued that some quality content is so deficient that the icons carry too little information to warrant heightened visibility. I am planning to revisit the proposal at some point, particularly if better research becomes available to speak to the first concern, and if efforts like WP:URFA/2020 help alleviate the second concern. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Another example that comes to mind is the typical practice of using hatnotes for surname clarification. As far as I can tell, this is something we started doing in Wikipedia's early days because we just didn't know where else to put the information. But there are two problems with it. First, it gives what is ultimately a trivial piece of information undue prominence by placing it above even the first sentence, cluttering the top of the article. Second, it muddles the purpose of hatnotes, to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for, which ought to allow readers who know they have arrived at the right article to ignore them. I developed {{Family name footnote}}, and hope for it (or another alternative) to achieve wider use in the future. However, as of the last major discussion on this, in 2022, we were not able to achieve consensus to make mass changes. Sdkb ^talk 00:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Queen of Hearts

17. Here's a (lighthearted) question: how do you pronounce your username? I've always thought it was "sid-kib", but that's just me.

A: In my head I tend to pronounce the letters individually. If you must pronounce it as a single word, then /ˈsʊdʊkʊbʊh/, spoken as rapidly as possible, is the approved version. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from JPxG

18. ________________________________________? (feel free to fill in with whatever)

A:

Optional questions from Panini!

19. It's should be no question that you are among Wikipedia's top "resident funny folk". Some selected selected works of yours I love include Wikipedia:Featured sentences, Wikipedia:WikiProject Users, Wikipedia:Notability (mailboxes), your TFA for Groundhog Day, and my personal favorite, Help:Buying Wikipedia. Your Wiki-humor is thriving and very well-received (I hope), so I think your opinion is relevant: What is your philosophy concerning humor on Wikipedia? For example, how should it be expressed, and to what degree and/or extent does it become disruptive?

A: (See Q20 answer below.)

20. Is humor on Wikipedia important? Why or why not? (In my opinion this is a both yes and no answer, so don't feel like you need to pick a side)

A: Thanks for the praise, Panini! (Humor is very much a matter of taste, so I take no offense if others don't share it.) I'll answer these questions together. I think the Department of Fun's talk page banner sums it up perfectly: humor aims to provide Wikipedians with fun so that they stay on Wikipedia and keep on improving articles. We need editors to write an encyclopedia, making humor important because it helps us retain editors. It can also push us to confront things that need to change — for example, at its core I wrote WikiProject Users to satirize maintenance tasks that serve no practical benefit, and the mailbox notability guideline to satirize instruction creep run amok.

At the same time, humor carries a very real risk of disruption if inappropriate, misinterpreted, or cluttering. Counterfactual humor in mainspace also risks damaging our credibility with readers who come to us expecting factual information, which is a serious matter given our role as one of the few widely trusted sources in today's information landscape. Because of this, I take the disclosure requirement seriously. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from John Cline

21. Please consider Wikipedia:Signatures#Guidelines and policies where it says: "A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username." and tell me: does your own signature exemplify its intent?

A: Hi John! I have on rare occasion encountered editors for whom my signature seems to render improperly, although I have never been able to figure out the cause. The image at right shows the intended display; if what you're seeing doesn't match that, then there is a technical issue. I do consider it to abide by the signature rules, as it identifies my username clearly, but I am always happy to hear any concerns.

That said, I have been thinking about updating my signature for a while, particularly since the foundation's talk pages project has reduced the need to use {{u}} for pinging. And now seems like a perfectly good time. Hope you enjoy the new look! Sdkb ^talk 19:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Sdkb for answering my question; particularly for the exceedingly kind sentiments conveyed in so doing! Clearly, the question was penned without semblance of similar compassion or skill. And for that: I apologize.--John Cline (talk) 08:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Shushugah

22. In the odd event that your RfA succeeds, are you willing to subject yourself to a voluntary interview with the prominent newspaper tabloid The Signpost in the upcoming March edition of WikiProject report on journalism? The masses want to know!

A: I was excited to see your interviewee request; most certainly! (I also intend to write a debrief of this RfA.) Sdkb ^talk 19:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from SchroCat

23. There has been one oppose (at the time of asking), in which the unsupported accusation has been made that you have "been using off-site means of communication to rope other users into edit warring on [your] behalf". Do you have a response to this unsubstantiated assertion?

A: I take a strictly vegetarian stance on meatpuppetry (or, to put it more formally, I do not use off-site communication to rope other users into edit-warring). Beyond that, I defer to what others have said. Sdkb ^talk 22:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I thought that was likely the case, but thank you for confirming. - SchroCat (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Levivich

24. Would you like to buy a vowel?

A: Sure, we could use some more of those. Happy to pay for it with an advance on my admin salary. Sdkb ^talk 20:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Links for Sdkb: Sdkb (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Sdkb 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. As nominator. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Qualified ten times over. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Support. I see a good track record, good content creation (5,379 pages!), many additional rights like template editor, rollback, and new page reviewer. There is a good namespace balance as well. 2003 LN6 18:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
4. Support - Seddon ^talk 18:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
5. As co-nominator. — The Earwig (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
6. Support Strongly. Great content creator. --Enos733 (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
7. Of course! I definitely appreciate their efforts to support new editors. That's something very important to me. Good luck :)! —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 18:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

   Their answer to Q5 is very well-written and they seem to know what they've done wrong in that situation, while explaining why it happened and what they've learned from it. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 22:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

   Reaffirming my support for the candidate. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 18:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

8. Support per noms and personal interactions. Been hoping this might come. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
9. Support as has lots of technical knowledge to be able to competently perform administrative tasks. Awesome Aasim 18:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
10. Support LGTM Prodraxis _(talk) 18:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
11. Support Why ever not? ResonantDis_tortion 18:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
12. Support. If anything, HouseBlaster is underestimating how many times over they are qualified. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
13. Support. Over qualified for the position. Easy one! Content work is not on main userpage for some reason, but can be found at User:Sdkb/Pages. May you have a smooth week! –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
14. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
15. Support Honestly thought they already were one. SportingFlyer T·C 18:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
16. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
17. As nominator :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
18. Support Leijurv (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
19. Support Conducts themselves already with the poise and responsibility of an administrator. I am particularly appreciative of the efforts to streamline talk page banners, and look forward to continued good work with the added tools that come with the mop. Fritzmann (message me) 18:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
20. About darn time! NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 18:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
21. Support Waiter, waiter, more content admins! Generalissima (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
22. throws criteria out of window ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
23. of course. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 18:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
24. Support: Duh! ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 19:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
25. Support and suggest adding extra free guac on the side. Panini! • 🥪 19:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
26. With those noms, it's hard to do anything but support. (Oh, and that Pomona College article is pretty amazing, granted.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
27. Support -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
28. Support no evidence that user is actually a mammal. Polygnotus (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
29. Support: I've always had a good impression of Sdkb, and reading through their handling of the two Pomona College FACs has solidified this. Good content contribution, level headed, able to handle a high-pressure environment. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
30. I was waiting for this! Aimed for #50, lost my patience though ;) NotAGenious (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
31. Support. In particular I'd like to endorse the response to Q2. Sdkb's interactions with me as a newcomer are part of why I'm still here. Absolutely a conscientious person who has been and will continue to be an asset to the encyclopedia. -- asilvering (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
32. Support: an excellent temperament and a Wikipedia polymath. The nomination statements and A1-3 provide an excellent introduction to the editor's work, which has improved the encyclopedia in many different directions. Thank you for running. — Bilorv (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
33. Support especially reading their answer to Q2. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
34. Support Hameltion (talk | contribs) 19:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
35. Support, with enthusiasm.-- Cerebral726 (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
36. Support long overdue. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 04:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

    Quite impressed by the answer to Q5. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 04:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

37. Support Everything looks solid and proven out in the types of areas that they plan to work in, including experience level. Beyond that, I really like the patience and dedication to helping newbies. North8000 (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
38. Support will make an excellent admin. Polyamorph (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
39. Support giving the tools to this skilled and thoughtful editor! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 19:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
40. Support. One of those people you always think "surely they already are", and then they're not, but now they will be :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
41. Support. 14 novembre (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
42. Support.~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 19:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
43. Support Babysharkboss2!! ^{AC/DC (Talk Page btw)}
44. SupportSVcode(Talk) 20:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
45. Support, no concerns here. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
46. Support thrilled to support with no reservations. Their advocacy for readers and newbies is sorely needed, and their admin work will certainly be exemplary. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
47. Strong support It is an absolute pleasure to see Sdkb's contributions at Teahouse and be a welcoming presence for new editors. I hope all editors reading this RfA emulate Sdkb. Thank you for volunteering! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
48. Support in the strongest sense of the word. This is an editor who took time out of multiple days to answer several basic questions I had about a form of content creation I wasn't familiar with. Their Pomona College work speaks for itself. Outstanding to see others agreeing that they deserve the mop. Best of luck! ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
49. Support Thrilled to see this RfA :). Very welcoming user, will make a great admin. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
50. Support. I had an excellent experience collaborating with Sdkb on a template, which predisposes me to support. Looking over the nomination statements and Sdkb's answers to the standard questions gives me every reason to believe that they will be an exemplary admin. Generalrelative (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
51. Support, great user who I thought was an admin already. – Hilst [talk] 20:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
52. Support. Super Ψ Dro 20:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
53. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
54. More than qualified. 2 FAs, a GA, and years of experience here! Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 20:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
55. Support - Easy one. Thanks for volunteering! — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
56. Support Has clue (many). Civil (very). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
57. Support my interactions with this user have been positive. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
58. Support absolutely. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
59. Support: From what I've seen from them I think they'll do well with the mop. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
60. Absolutely! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
61. Support – happy to see this. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
62. (edit conflict)Support. Will make a fine admin I'm sure. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
63. Support - the genius behind this deserves a mop of their own. GiantSnowman 20:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
64. Support, thought you were one for forever. ^Queenof_Hearts 21:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
65. Support. MarioGom (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
66. Support per other users positivity. Good luck! User:Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 21:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
67. support – robertsky (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
68. Support totally the cliche but I thought they were an admin, but assumed SDkb was. talented, friendly, knowledgeable, and prolific sums it up, especially the combination of knowledgeable and friendly as I appreciate how they explain things: whether their position, a technical issue or anything else. Star Mississippi 21:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
69. Support like the honesty in the answer to 4. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 22:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
70. Easy support. SWinxy (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
71. Support. Easy decision for me. A long-time contributor, and everything looks good. I've seen them around a lot, and as for the cliché of thinking they already were an administrator, well, I did, but I actually have had them confused with Sdrqaz. Woops! But seriously, an excellent track record, and the few issues that have been brought up so far in this RfA are insignificant. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
72. Support. Trust them with my life. — GhostRiver 23:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
73. Support Joyous! Noise! 23:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
74. Support. Good editor who I'm confident will use the tools well. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 23:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
75. Suppport. Sdkb is a great user, and I 100% support adminship for them! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
76. Support. Sdkb is a shrewd, thorough, and thoughtful writer who goes out of his way to be friendly. We need more Wikipedians like him!Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
77. Support. No problems here. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
78. Support Absolutely sure there is nothing wrong with Sdkb gaining adminship. RfA makes no sense if somebody like him does not pass it. (AlphaBetaGammsh (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC))

    Support No concerns found, aaand it's over 200 with only 1 Oppose and Neutral. Nice to see some RfAs pass in a way like this :D Also, this vote is likely malformed judging by the preview, can someone with knowledge fix this? AlphaBetaGammsh (talk) 06:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

    Moved duplicate !vote. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

79. Support. I'm pretty happy with the candidate's answer to my question, and I have no other concerns to note. They seem to have a good temperament and sufficient experience. Best of luck, Sdkb! MaterialsPsych (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
80. Support We need more admins. Sdkb seems like a good choice. Harej (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
81. Totally. Sdkb is a trusted technical user who has a need for the tools, and their content creation is definitely a plus as well. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
82. Support – Always astounded me that Sdkb was not mopped long ago. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
83. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
84. Support per all the RfA clichés (which are all true): net positive, not a jerk, has a clue, no concerns, thought they were already an admin. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
85. Support. I was genuinely surprised when I learned they weren't already an admin. I find the answers to the questions satisfactory too. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 01:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
86. Support. No issues here, I was hoping that this RFA would come. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
87. Support glad to see you're finally running :) Elli (talk | contribs) 02:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
88. Support, pending answers to Q13 and Q14. Happy to see the user run. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
89. Support, since it is unlikely that answers to Q11 and Q12 will be disqualifying.Reasonable answers to Q11 and Q12. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
90. Support—I either thought they were one, or I knew they weren't and thought they should be. Either way, let's rectify that. Kurtis ^(talk) 02:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
91. Support: They deserve the mop. Came across them quite recently and I thought they were already an admin. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
92. Support I've seen this editor before. I love their work on vital articles! Mox Eden (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
93. Support (with nonsense) Okay, time to make the doughnuts. Another non-plant editing candidate to review. Lots of anti-vandalism, visit their user page... What the... That's a lemur! What are you thinking letting this {{u|Sdkb}} lemur be an admin? Lemurs! You can't let lemurs in here, they'll see the big board! 🌿MtBotany (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
94. Support Good content creation, good technical skills required for adminship. Just a random Wikipedian^(talk) 03:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
95. Support editor has grown by leaps and bounds in just a few years. We need more admins familiar with the back side of Wikipedia.Moxy- 03:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
96. Support. Good past interactions, extremely qualified for the mop. Thanks for volunteering! 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
97. Support More than qualified for adminship. –FlyingAce^✈hello 04:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
98. Support can't think of many users I have a better impression of than Sdkb. – Teratix ₵ 04:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
99. Support. I think it was receiving Sdkb's constructive feedback and perceptive feedback for pandemic-related graphics that I gained a very positive impression. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
100. Phenomenal editor, good track record, and low-key thought they were an administrator already—net positive to have them take up the mop. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 05:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
101. Support – Plenty of experience in content-creation, does great work with technical matters, and is quite friendly to newcomers. Would make a great admin. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 05:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
102. Support. If you prioritize temperament for admin candidates, check out the banner shell discussions. This was a huge task that needed to be done after an RFC revised how we rate articles. Sdkb has really helped keep that update trucking along. Other editors have hopped in with conflicting proposals and sometimes accusations, and Sdkb has taken it all as feedback and managed to mine consensus out of the muck. Good luck! Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
103. Support. Nothing problematic here! TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 05:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
104. Frostly (talk) 05:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
105. Support unless I see anything majorly off, I think this candidate would make for a good admin. I've seen them around being very helpful and providing excellent responses to questions. I don't understand the !oppose vote, but based what I've seen on-wiki, the user has comported themself well. Will be curious to see their answers to the other questions asked. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 06:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
106. no reason not to! sawyer * he/they * talk 06:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
107. Thank you for stepping up to this... Best wishes - Volten001 ^☎ 07:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
108. Support Why not? Okoslavia (talk) 07:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
109. Support, no big deal, no reason not to. BilledMammal (talk) 09:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
110. Support seen around, has a clue, not a jerk. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 10:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
111. Support Most certainly. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
112. Support – why not? Graham87 (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
113. Support very happy to see this RfA, long time coming. Sdkb has been committed to wiki-improvement for a long time, notably by handling UX improvements with great diplomacy and tact. He has the right demeanour for adminship. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
114. Support Have seen them around in technical spaces Sohom (talk) 11:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
115. Support. Have seen them around and have good impression. CapitalSasha ~ talk 11:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
116. Support Easy support here. CoconutOctopus talk 11:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
117. Support No issues! -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
118. Support per ProcrastinatingReader. Geardona (talk to me?) 12:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
119. Support sure, good positive work, seen them arround - no concerns. KylieTastic (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
120. Support - thought they were already Mujinga (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
121. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
122. Support No concerns, thought they were already an admin. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 16:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
123. Support Looks okay to me. Deb (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
124. Support another one in the camp of "I thought you were an admin already". Great editor and has a clue. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 16:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
125. Support Heck yes! Scorpions1325 (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
126. Support An incredibly helpful editor, fully engaged in improving the experience of new users - both at the Teahouse and in improving ease of use of many templates. I would have been happy to co-nominate Sdkb, but I must apologise to him for failing to respond to emails, as real life problems have rather got in my way of late. He will make a superb administrator! Nick Moyes (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
127. Support Recognisable as someone with enough sense to have a mop. NebY (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
128. Support Rcsprinter123 (comment) 16:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
129. Support – Well qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
130. Support ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
131. Support Entirely valuable editor with the knowledge, skills, and experience worth taking up the mop. Jerium (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
132. Support 777burger ^{user talk contribs} 19:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

     Support I like the candidate's record and I am convinced that they will protect content and content creators. I had just remembered this DRV initiated by them showing that they are not afraid to speak truth to power. Additionally the answer to question 8 is reasonable. I have made extended comments in the neutral section about their collegial discussions and their helpful ANI action... all of it convinces me that this is a good candidate who will make a fine administrator. Lightburst (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

133. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
134. Support. I've not always agreed with this candidate; however, there is no doubt in my mind that they will use the tools to help the project and its editors. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 21:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
135. Support I've seen them around and find their interactions to be thoughtful and civil even when in opposition to my own opinions. I respect this editor and I'm glad to see them here at RfA. Good luck with the mop! TipsyElephant (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
136. Support YES! Sdkb is among the most dedicated and passionate editors that Wikipedia has ever seen. He has dipped his toe into almost every area of the project, and specialized in several, which he has innovated and improved from the ground up. This is the kind of person we want to watch over things, have our back, and look to for advice. I have never met an editor more deserving of adminship. Aza24 (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
137. Suppport I have seen them around the wiki and trust the nominators, so I support this candidate. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
138. Support Why not? -Fastily 23:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
139. Support My vague memory has generally positive opinions of Sdkb, and their answers to Q4/5/8 were clueful and impressive. Soni (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
140. Oppose, too uncontroversial, too conflict-free, too competent, almost like an alien here ;) — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
141. Support, As per others Centuries123 (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
142. Support. No concerns, clearly a great candidate. Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
143. Support Solid record. Has a clue. Couldn't find any red or yellow flags. The sole oppose is unpersuasive. Good luck. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
144. Support They seem proactive and helpful enough to be a good admin. J390 (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
145. Support - No issues here. Bringingthewood (talk) 05:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
146. Support Trustworthy, experienced candidate, will benefit the project with the tools. Spencer^T•C 06:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
147. Support Will make a good admin. Bduke (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
148. Support per many of the above. Solid, has a clue, no red flags etc. - SchroCat (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
149. Support - seen this editor around. I have no concerns. Mjroots (talk) 07:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
150. Support; not a jerk, has clue, etc etc, despite my misgivings about people who attend college. jp×g🗯️ 11:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
151. Support per nominators. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
152. Support, I see him a lot and I think he will be great as an admin. Youprayteas (talk to me? | contribs) 13:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
153. Support I've seen Sdkb around; they do good work, and each of his nominators has impeccable judgement in these matters. Cheers, ——Serial 13:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
154. {{support}}! Chlod (say hi!) 15:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
155. Support Helpful in numerous areas, well-considered in opinions and seems willing to learn from mistakes. No concerns. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
156. Support- Absolutely a terrific candidate. Give the mop already.   Aloha27  talk  17:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
157. Without reservation. Sdkb is one of our best editors. – Joe (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
158. Has good experience in areas where admin tools would be useful — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 17:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
159. Support Great candidate based on my experience. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 17:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
160. Support   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
161. Support. I see no reason for concern. BD2412 T 18:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
162. Support. A great candidate. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
163. Support: I always had an impression that Sdkb was an admin. ─ Aafī (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
164. Support jengod (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
165. Support I have observed Sdkb in a number of different areas and have always noticed their excellent contributions and demeanour. Gizza (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
166. Support Has a good track record and seems like they would do well. Takerlamar (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
167. Support Good replies to 6 and 7. No issues. Chetsford (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
168. Support - A highly qualified candidate. Thanks for volunteering. Netherzone (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
169. Full support, excellent contributions. Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
170. Support LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
171. Support I have seen Sdkb's work on many occasions and totally agree with the nomination statements. Highly qualified and excemment demeanor. Donner60 (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
172. Support Easily. Great track record in driving forward proposals for making the site more newcomer-friendly and for UX improvements. We need more editors who think like Sdkb. – SD0001 (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
173. Support Excellent editing history, looks like a super candidate. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
174. Support. Rzuwig^► 12:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
175. Support Winner! Gagnant. Seems pretty good for a candidate. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 14:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
176. Support. Clearly knowledgeable in a diverse range of areas, and the answers to the questions convince me that they are able to make difficult calls, defend them when called upon, and change their approach when appropriate. Very strong candidate all around. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
177. Support - everywhere Ive seen them around has been a solid contributor and makes well reasoned and thoughtful arguments. nableezy - 15:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
178. Support Cabayi (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
179. Support looks great Shaws username (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
180. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
181. Support - active, qualified, thoughtful and worthy of adminship -- BCorr|Брайен 22:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC).
182. Support. I've seen this user around and their great contributions so, why not. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 23:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
183. Support Great candidate; happy to support.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
184. Support, no reason to think they'd abuse the tools. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
185. Support. I've encountered SDKB around the wiki from time to time and don't recall any issues, I'm also impressed with the answers to questions. Thryduulf (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
186. Support This is a candidate who is highly qualified both in content creation and "behind the scenes" work to help the encyclopedia operate more smoothly. I share with the candidate an interest in art museums affiliated with colleges and universities. Sdkb is the primary author of Benton Museum of Art just as I am the primary author of Manetti Shrem Museum of Art. Good work! Good candidate! Cullen328 (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
187. Support Excellent candidate, no concerns. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
188. Support Absolutely. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
189. No concerns. DreamRimmer (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
190. Support Net positive for the wiki. Gravel for breakfast (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
191. Support many reasons to support. Trustworthy, communicates well, has a grasp of our WP:PGE. Bruxton (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
192. Support No concerns. – bradv 16:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
193. Support Looks good to me. Fanfanboy (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
194. Support I don't know if I have the right to vote, but I support it. Lionel Cristiano^? 17:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

     @Lionel Cristiano: (edit conflict) Any non-blocked editor is welcome to express an opinion at RfA. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

     @Nihonjoe Small caveat. IP editors are welcome to ask questions/comment, but they cannot vote while only Registered accounts can, which Lionel Cristiano is of course. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

195. --Andreas JN466 17:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
196. Support per noms and stellar track record. The oppose has yet to make their case, so I can't take it into consideration. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
197. Support Sennecaster (Chat) 19:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
198. Genuinely this is how I learned they weren’t already. Carry on the good work! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
199. Support. 200! BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
200. Support as a good editor I often encounter around the place, who I would have guessed was already an admin. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
201. Support - an excellent and fully qualified editor- no concerns. VickKiang (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
202. Support I genuinely believed they already were an admin, easy support from me. Sam Walton (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
203. Support. Homeostasis07 pretty quickly lodged shocking allegations in two messages here. Shortly after that, I encountered this RFA and decided that it would be inappropriate for me to vote until I'd gotten to either review their evidence or, if it had to be kept private, consider the response from ArbCom, Trust & Safety, or whichever other entity. Homeostasis07 is a long-time, well-respected editor and while their on-wiki persona can tend towards the dramatic, I would never have guessed they could be the type to throw a pipe bomb like that and then just...not follow it up. Their second message here is their most recent edit, it's more than four days old, this RFA ends in about two and a half days, and, well, I wish I'd guessed better.
     Even after all of this, I'm still eager to see the evidence. In the absence of such an update, I tried to gather information, as User:Daniel Case and User:Ixtal have noted, and have found no indication of bad behavior on the nominee's part. Per AGF, I'll be prepared to switch to oppose per Homeostasis07 until the instant this RFA closes but also per AGF, particularly regarding Sdkb's answer to question #23, I can't justify waiting any longer. Sdkb is easy to support in light of their work on this website and their uniformly strong answers to the reams of questions they've been asked. City of Silver 02:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
204. Support - all the best Tolly4bolly 08:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
205. I am, unequivocally, qualifying mine as the "strongest support possible".--John Cline (talk) 08:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
206. Stephen 09:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
207. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
208. Strong support. I keep getting that annoying "I thought you were an admin already" feeling. And oh boy, the answers to those questions are absolutely incredible. Like seriously. If this guy took public speaking, massive kudos to him. I want that feeling to go away when he actually becomes an admin. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
209. Support. The easiest !vote I've ever cast. Maproom (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
210. Support - I am very impressed with the candidate's response to the questions, their positive and friendly approach, and lastly their enormous experience on content creation. Best of luck! 💛 Brat Forelli🦊 13:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
211. Support - seems extremely qualified for the mop. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 13:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
212. —Kusma (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

     This RfA is another example why we should not have comments next to the votes. Comments should happen in a dedicated comments section, votes should happen in a dedicated voting section, discussion should happen in a dedicated discussion section and soapboxing should happen in a dedicated soapboxing section. If you believe this WP:POINT violation is sufficiently disruptive, feel free to move it to the soapboxing section. —Kusma (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

213. Salvio ^giuliano 19:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
214. Suppport Would be extremely net positive to the project as an admin. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
215. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
216. Support I’ve only seen positives with this editor Mccapra (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
217. Support Seems qualified, unlikely to abuse the tools, I don't see any reason not to support. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
218. Support as yet another member of WP:ITHOUGHTTHEYWEREALREADYANADMINISTRATOR. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
219. Support. Good editor, good nominations. I’m content. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
220. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 02:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
221. Support. Qualified, clueful, moderate, devoted, constructive. I can't see any downside.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
222. Support - After looking through everything in their contribs and this RfA I do not have any concerns. - Aoidh (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
223. Support - - FitIndia ^{Talk (Admin on Commons)} 04:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
224. Support - Contributions show a good understanding of policies. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
225. Support - I can find reasons to support, and can't find any reasons to oppose.DarmaniLink (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
226. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 07:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
227. Support: a win for the growth team and a win for all of us. Easy support. BusterD (talk) 13:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
228. Support if at this late juncture nobody has managed to cast an oppose that isn't block-worthy, then it's probably safe to support this candidate. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
229. Support Savvy, dedicated, knowledgeable. Body of work impressive. A welcome addition to the admin corps. StonyBrook _babble 15:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
230. Support - Seen you around doing great content work. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
231. Suport Trusted editor. I've been watching for the past few days to see if anything came out of Homeostasis's claims. It doesn't look like they're going to be contacting arbcom before the end of this RfA (or possibly at all). If there's an issue, Arbcom will deal with it if and when the evidence is submitted. Sincerely, Novo Tape^{My Talk Page} 16:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
232. Support - no reason not to. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
233. Support. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
234. Support I normally just watch RfA, and I do support Sdkb, but I'm here to counter the absolutely ridiculous disruptive POINTY oppose votes. -- ferret (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
235. Support - another helpful addition to the admin corps. Loopy30 (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
236. Support: This person is a workhorse, a real wiki-beast! Of course! GenQuest ^"scribble" 17:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
237. Support: In protest of the WP:POINTy and disruptive oppose votes below. Hurricane Noah (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
238. Support I am not around much lately but I remember Sdkb from 3,000 years ago, and I am frankly surprised it's taken this long for them to run. Maybe I should oppose for this really poor show of judgement, making Wikipedia miss out for so many years. (I was trying to be fair to Homeo but I believe I've waited long enough, especially considering the candidate is someone I've known well and waited for to run forever.) Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
239. Support - Good replies to questions. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
240. Support. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
241. Support - I was going to sit this one out since I have had zero interaction with Sdkb and this RFA was an obvious pass, but people seem desparate to make pointy opposes. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
242. Support- Late to the party but I like to support good candidates when they hit RfA. VegaDark (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
243. Support Of course Lightoil (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
244. Support Great candidate, great answers, no concerns. Perfect4th (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
245. Support - the wub "?!" 23:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
246. Support - pretty much per Reaper Eternal 🙄 ---Sluzzelin talk 23:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
247. My gut instinct early on had been to support on the strength of the candidate's track record, but I held off to respect the possibility of evidence surfacing that would support the assertions made by Homeostasis07 in their oppose !vote. I don't agree with removing the !vote outright, but neither do I particularly approve of the protest !votes which have followed. As Homeostasis07 has given no indication on-wiki that evidence has been submitted, and indeed arbitrator Firefly has remarked to the contrary, I am !voting based on what I see – and what I see is a hardworking, multi-talented, diligent, and courteous contributor who will be an asset as an administrator. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
248. Support - although it's obviously a foregone conclusion. Constructive editor who hits all the right notes for an admin. Will be a wonderful addition.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
249. Obvious support. Just piling on for a great candidate. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
250. Pile-on support - no issues whatsoever, a more than ideal candidate. Best of luck! :-) Patient Zero^talk 04:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
251. Support of course! Legoktm (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
252. Support good stats, good answers to the questions, no obvious problems. Nobody (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
253. Support. I have seen numerous times. This vote could be and should be uncontested if not for some "things" in the Oppose section. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
254. Support – good for you for running. Blythwood (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
255. Support No red flags and it looks like a fine candidate for adminship. Best of luck going forward. Nemov (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

     Support. They have the qualifications for an admin and I find their answer to the questions satisfactory. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 14:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

     Duplicate support vote (01:29, 10 February 2024), removed from count. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

256. Pile on Support Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
257. Support positive overall impresion from seeing the editor around and seems like will be significant net positive. Skynxnex (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
258. Support per nom and my very many positive experiences with, and observations of, Sdkb across the project. Grandpallama (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
259. Support - I see no issues. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
260. Support - all the right attributes needed MarcGarver (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
261. Support. Changing my !vote due to my generally high opinion of the candidate and Homeostasis having left his allegations unssubstantiated. Daniel Case (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

     Some additional comments as I thought the RfA was almost over when I originally typed this and I wanted to get them in and I was also in a rush: If this turned into one of those embarassments (I think we've had at least one RfA end like this) where in the middle of an apparently successful RfA it had to be withdrawn after the candidate got indeffed, or even worse, a situation where a month later we're revoking the bit because the allegations turned out to be true, I did not want to feel as if I'd enabled it. But now that it looks like there will be no airing of these issues during this RfA, I consider myself in the clear. Especially when I wasn't the only one prompting Homeo to share what he was compiling.

     And unfortunately, no one's really coming out looking good. Homeo, by just letting those allegations hang out there, has set themselves up for a reasonable inference that it was all a calculated bluff meant purely as payback for an apparent past slight. But we cannot definitely assume that was their intent, for as I've written elsewhere it was presumptuous to assume that they'd had enough time to put up before the RfA was over and strike the !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

262. Support- looks like a good candidate for admin. WizardGamer775 (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
263. Support - good content contributions, has lots of experience, isn't a dork, so no reason not to support. Good luck, and welcome to the corps.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
264. Per the opposers. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
265. Support - Sdkb has done excellent work in content creation and has also had diverse experience in various areas of Wikipedia for many years. Totally suitable for the role of an administrator. TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 20:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC) Vote and discussion moved to the talk page. Primefac (talk) 07:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Until a time that the user comes back to reestablish their vote inside community norms, this vote is struck. -- Amanda (she/her) 02:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It is one oppose AmandaNP and you all need to stop obsessing over it. I think this RFA candidate is a good one, but I will move to oppose if you insist on tampering with the vote. Lightburst (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

This can be appealed to my fellow crats at BN if you disagree. -- Amanda (she/her) 03:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

1. Oppose Sdkb, I think you are a strong candidate but a voter in good standing has had their vote struck. I moved my vote to oppose so that the vote is accurate. I cannot edit war the Homeostasis07 vote. Homeostasis07 has not edited since February 9th. I realize that my vote is meaningless as an oppose but it will allow the record to be correct. I hope to work with you and I congratulate you on gaining the trust of the community.Lightburst (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

   This is distinct from !voting with idiosyncratic criteria and expectations. There is no entitlement to violate Wikipedia's behavioural policies and guidelines when editing the encyclopedia, in any space. Homeostasis07 has sac'ed their 'good standing' to cast thus far unsupported aspersions against Sdkb. Whilst invoking their 'good standing' as a defense for their caustic !vote, you've neglected that the intent of it was to burn the 'good standing' of Sdkb, Ixtal, and others. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

   Perhaps it was. But I do not consider that clearly established until the clock runs out on an RfA (we have as of this writing 25 hours, I think, although with the tally going the way it is we're clearly in garbage time). To strike that !vote before the deadline is a rather extraordinary move; to strike it on the grounds that the claim is false, without any evidence to that effect other than one's own impatience with that !vote, reeks of hypocrisy when you are accusing the !voter of making a totally spurious allegation. Daniel Case (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

   [T]o strike it on the grounds that the claim is false ... are not the grounds the !vote was struck on. That is a mischaracterisation. It was struck on the basis that unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct violate WP:NPA by casting of aspersions. Whether they are true or false is an irrelevancy to that end. The !vote was not merely struck, but struck and redacted. The !voter was also invited to reformulate their oppose within the bounds of that policy. They have not been barred from !voting in this RfA. This all has been re-affirmed by the 'crat AmandaNP repeatedly since their clerking action. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

   I struck the above vote as a textbook WP:POINT violation. Fram (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

   A vote is a vote is a vote -- and should be inviolate, no matter how stupid. If the voter's explanation of their vote is scurrilous it may be deleted -- but the vote, no! You're sliding down a slippery slope. Smallchief (talk) 09:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

   Striking !votes that are overtly not related to the candidate is not a slippery slope; it is a step towards making RfA a less disruptive place. If Lightburst wants to throw his toys out of the pram because a bureaucrat decided to remove unsupported aspersions that had been left up for over five days, he can make an appeal at BN. Disrupting the RfA is a poor choice, even if it is what we have all come to expect from Lightburst. Also, I'd like to see what policy you can cite to support the notion that any !vote, no matter how asinine, irrelevant, or petulant, is somehow inviolate. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

   "Policy" can be -- and has been -- used to justify the worst of crimes. Far more important in any decent society is the right of members to express their opinion by voting and having their vote counted. Efforts to exclude votes and voters because you don't like their opinion is wrong. However, as I previously said, a voter's explanation of their vote should be deleted if it is slanderous, libelous, or racist. But a "no" vote is not, of and by itself, an attack on another editor and should be respected. Smallchief (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

   Not the first time that I've seen someone reply in generalities because they didn't want to address the specific details being discussed. At any rate, Wikipedia operates based on policies whether you like it or not, and I am aware of no policy that declares !votes inviolate. Also, the first oppose was removed because the !voter violated policy. Your suggestion that it was because we don't like their opinion indicates that you haven't adequately familiarized yourself with the situation. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

   Historically, pointy votes have not been struck (though they have been decidedly ignored during 'crat chats). As such I am restoring it. Primefac (talk) 09:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

   Well, historically false claims haven't been struck at RFAs either, and e.g. people can present false evidence at an ArbCom case without any fear of repercussions as well. If we would apply policies at these locations as well, perhaps some things would improve instead of giving again the impression that anything goes here. The vote being disregarded by the crats is all fine and good when it comes down to a crat chat, but in the meantime people are free to disrupt these discussions, reinforcing the image of RfA and so on as a place best avoided for its unpleasantness. (Oh, and pointy votes may not have been struck, but people have been topic banned from RfA for them; seems rather illogical to let things stand for which you can get banned) Fram (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

   Whether this !vote could lead to a topic ban is purely speculative at this point ... it is not for us here, or any one of us, to decide that it will and take action on that basis. Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

2. Oppose - In protest of the arbitrary striking of a valid vote. I congratulate the candidate on a successful RFA and wish them well in the future. Carrite (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

   i am going to bang my head against a wall. ltbdl (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

   I'm going to register a support !vote in protest of some editors messing with the oppose ones. Oh wait, I did that already when this RfA started, in anticipation! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

   I'm sorry, but as you are likely well aware, we have policies in place against people making unsubstantiated attacks against editors. That in and of itself makes the vote invalid. Until such a time that valid evidence of the actions is provided, the vote is treated as a personal attack and thus will remain struck. Defending someone who made unsubstantiated meat puppetry allegations isn't the hill to die on. I'm voting support in protest of this oppose vote. Hurricane Noah (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

   Good. This brand of pettiness is what RfA needs more of. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

NeutralI'm almost certain to support this fine candidate and look forward to doing so. I place my !vote here in the Neutral section only as a formality pending response to the questions I asked.Moving to support based on good replies to my questions. Chetsford (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC); edited 01:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Neutral moved to support but leaving my comments here so that I do not have to repeat Goes the extra mile like this and has some collegial discussions. I see that they use talk pages regularly to communicate and leave positive messages. I was however concerned that they seemingly made an accusation here and then never followed up to comment or apologize. I see they regularly participate in RFAs except for the RFAs of MB, Interstellarity and the Tails WX. (all failed). I just need context on that talk page accusation before I move my vote.

The AfD participation looks good, and I appreciate that they are not ivoting when the outcome has already been decided. They have 77k edits and regularly contribute to the project. They did create 129 stubs which while not against policy... I believe these perma-stubs are a negative. I would ideally like to see more good content since they created only than only one GA level article, many stubs and 20 C level articles.

In 2020 they had their Template editor rights removed by the community In 2021, they left a terse message like this in relation to a disagreement about the Marilyn Manson article. (I think this is the same snowball fight that Homeostasis07 speaks of in their oppose)

Finally I appreciate that they made a valiant effort to save everyone time by closing this behemoth discussion so it could get to a proper venue. But it was not to be because it was undone by EEng. I appreciate the effort by Sdkb. They also thankfully did not participate in the wilding that took place in that disgraceful thread. I am in neutral until I can see a response to their cryptic warning on AD’s talk page with no follow up.Lightburst (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I would note that though their template editor right was revoked in 2020, it was not "by the community" - it was revoked as a unilateral action and the subsequent discussion did not exactly wholeheartedly endorse the initial report which triggered it... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Lightburst! The candidate has addressed their template editor rights being removed in their answer to Q5. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 22:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

#Neutral Just neutral until the oppose is responded to (if that is allowed), then I will switch to support.Geardona (talk to me?) 02:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Geardona: There's an unwritten convention that candidates don't directly answer opposes at RfA, because that can be seen as "badgering" the oppose. If you'd like to see an answer, I encourage you to ask the candidate a question about how they'd respond to the oppose. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, ok I will just switch to support Geardona (talk to me?) 12:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Neutral: On the face of things, someone I've seen around and been impressed by. Lots of other good people vouching for them, too. A candidate I would really, really, like to add myself to the mounting pile of supports for.

But ... I am little surprised that the response to the one oppose has focused primarily on the weaker of the two allegations, the one supported by the linked diffs but as many commentators have pointed out, a situation from which one can reasonably infer an innocent explanation. However, the one preceding it, the allegation that the candidate has been coordinating edit wars off-wiki, has gone utterly unaddressed. If true, this would be a very serious problem and we would be being generous if all we did was close this RfA with prejudice, as unsuccessful, upon confirming it.

@Homeostasis07:, if you do truly have this evidence that has been provided to you, I request that you share it with ArbCom for some expedited review as soon as possible. As it is it's just hanging out there, and if you consider this (properly) serious enough to bring up in an RfA and not retract it even as you remain the sole oppose !vote, then it's serious enough to bring forward to those who can really take any action it would require. Maybe you have done so already, but I have seen nothing here to indicate that you have.

Since absent clarity on this I do not feel comfortable !voting up or down, I am putting myself down for now as a neutral !vote.Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

1. Addendum: I see I'm not alone in wanting to know more. Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

   True. But it's a tricky one; at the moment, until they've finished 'compiling diffs'—and how long do they have?—they've effectively made an aspersion, unsupported, and disappeared. WP:GRENADE springs to mind. Unfortunately, it is not impossible that the longer their comment is allowed to stand as is, the more chance there is that the waters are poisoned. Because a persistent pattern of false or unsupported allegations can be highly damaging to a collaborative editing environment, such accusations will be collectively considered a personal attack, and Homeostasis07 should at least be made aware that he is in some danger of facing the usual consequences to PAs. ——Serial 18:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

   Following your comment, I looked at the diff Homeostasis provided of an editor supposedly reverting to sdkb's "preferred version". It's pretty weak stuff: Sdkb's previous edit to the page had been over a month prior with by my count 23 intervening edits; during that time two other editors had suggested the edit that Ixtal made on the talkpage. Sdkb, on the other hand, was not involved in the discussion and as far as I can see never supported what Homeostasis claims was their "preferred version". So Homeostasis' only evidence provided on wiki thus far for this claim seems to be "Ixtal made an edit to Marilyn Manson 40 days after Sdkb had last engaged on that page, supporting a version advocated for two users neither of whom were Sdkb". I'm not convinced, frankly. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

   And the editor interaction analyser does not suggest they had any significant interactions before that point – it's not as though they were established on-wiki friends. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

   There's already been a convincing explanation, as I noted. That's why I said I would really like for Homeostasis to share, at least privately with ArbCom, this load of evidence they have apparently needed all weekend to compile, that just sat around, apparently, until they learned of this RfA. Daniel Case (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

   "There's already been a convincing explanation, as I noted." You said it had gone "utterly unaddressed". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

   You're confusing the one bit where he offered diffs (which the comments blunt) with the evidence he said he had been provided, of which he implied there is much more, and later said he is "compiling". Of note is that he says this involves off-wiki efforts, which if true makes it understandable that he would not divulge it here. That is what no one else !voting has remarked on. Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

   I see your general point, but what else can !voters do? If Homeostatis' evidence is convincing and there is a problem, ArbCom will likely take action as they would with any admin. There's no reason to consider purely hypothetical evidence no one else has ever seen. In the meantime, the candidate has to be assessed on the known merits. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

   That's why I've !voted neutral, and indicated this is not a final position on my part. Daniel Case (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

   If we took every single unsubstantiated aspersion of serious wrongdoing that was cast at RfA seriously, we would never elect a single administrator. Serious claims require serious evidence, and until the existence of that serious evidence is demonstrated, either to ArbCom or the community, it isn't productive to take those accusations seriously. I can't be sure whether Homeostasis07's accusation is genuine or an attempt at derailing the RfA because they have an axe to grind. Only time will tell, I guess. MaterialsPsych (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

   Daniel Case, please read my reply to Homeostasis above. I have provided evidence their allegation, at least as far as it extends to my edits on the Marilyn Manson article, is not true. While Homeostasis claimed my edit as only a minor example of Sdkb's alleged canvassing and I have no idea what "major" cases of canvassing they claim to have seen, I'm pretty certain they're just casting big shadows and making noise by rattling an empty can as no other evidence has been provided and no other edits or pages have been mentioned. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 23:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

   That's what I said; I have said more than once that the allegation regarding you is not substantial as it's easy enough to find an innocent explanation, and the records suggest that is indeed the more likely one.

   But at the same time AGF means, to me, that we let Homeostasis make his case, or indicate that he has (as I've said, given the nature of the allegations I doubt he would post whatever evidence he has or believes he has publicly) done so. He has not edited since saying he was "compiling" things on the day the RfA opened, so if he has done so it has not been public. But all the same it would be nice if he would drop back in here and let us know how things are going, or not going. He has a few more days. Daniel Case (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

General comments

• Is the oppose about User_talk:Sdkb/Archive_5#EDIT_WARRING_NOTICE and User_talk:Sdkb/Archive_5#Editors_must_disclose_any_potential_CoI? If so, it sounds like a nothingburger. Polygnotus (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  I want to nominate you simply for using the term “nothingburger” I commend you! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

---

• Off topic, so beat me with a wet noodle. I don't have an opinion concerning the suitability of this candidate to become an administrator -- but I am mildly offended to learn from this discussion that Wikipedia's featured article of the day can be a music album (Heaven Upside Down) by a shock musician (Marilyn Manson) who, surprise! surprise!, is involved in a scandal. It's fine with me that Heaven Upside Down is determined to be a featured article and kudos to the editors who crafted it -- the articles I create are also relatively unimportant -- but, in the future, can't we find more significant articles and ones less liable to be embroiled in scandal to showcase as the featured article of the day? Marketing 101. Smallchief (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  It's not really appropriate for editors to decide what topics are "important" or "significant". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  Almost every featured article has run on TFA, and a few have re-ran. Mach61 (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah. I know there's definitely a few articles that are not allowed to appear on TFA, but something like 89 percent of all current FAs have appeared on the Main Page. And most of these are either music, history, sports, video games, or warfare articles. That last category, warfare, makes up a third of all FAs that haven't yet appeared on the Main Page. Anyway, just food for thought. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  According to [5], 8,380 fine articles and 2,205 fine lists are on Wikipedia. Thus, plenty of choices exist to pick an article to feature each day on the Wikipedia home page. All I'm saying is that care be taken to ensure an appropriate article is picked by whoever decides such things -- the foundation? the editors? -- to advertise Wikipedia. Smallchief (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  There is a separate process for featured lists to appear on the main page; the featured lists/featured pictures have there own spot and there is always a featured article. WP:FA actually gives the featured article figure as 6,437, and WP:FL shows 4,261 featured lists, so I'm not sure where that is coming from. The today's featured article process runs through WP:TFA, which has coordination and heavily selects based on requests made at WP:TFAR and WP:TFARP. If I remember correctly, the album article in question had gone through the requests process. Hog Farm _Talk 15:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Hog Farm, the 8,380 FA and 2,205 FL figure comes from Smallchief's link, specifically Wikipedia:Content assessment#Statistics.

  @Smallchief, Hog Farm is right. There was an RfC in 2017, back when there was a shortage of FAs that had not appeared on the main page. An option to run a featured list in place of a featured article was rejected. Currently, the TFA coordinators sometimes re-run old TFAs if there are not enough featured articles; there is a separate slot for TFLs further down on the Main Page. A new RfC would have to be started if there were a desire to display a featured list in place of a featured article. (Off-off-topic, but the Foundation has never had any editorial control over the contents of the TFA, to my knowledge. Everything is discussed by volunteer editors at WP:TFAR.) – Epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  The large number of warfare articles arises from the dedication of WikiProject Military History to our article review processes. Since the TFA coordinators like to vary the topics as much as possible, an article on a less popular topic area is more likely to run sooner. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure that 8,380 figure is just the articles currently classified as FA, we have delisted a whole bunch more over the years, many of which will have spent a day on the mainpage whilst they were FAs. ϢereSpielChequers 12:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  What are the ones that aren't? jp×g🗯️ 11:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  @JPxG, for one, Super Columbine Massacre RPG! has been nominated for TFA twice, and it failed both times. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  Back in the day, Jenna Jameson (now delisted): see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-18/Dispatches, footnote 1. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  Lisa Nowak is a featured article, but was pulled on 14 September 2023. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  Don't believe WP:NOTCENSORED. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Instead, believe in Wikipedia:NOTEDGELORDS. Imagine if bringing an article up to a certain standard automatically guaranteed a place on one of the most viewed pages on the web. People who are willing to spend the time and effort required to bring articles up to scratch could teach the world about all kinds of *stuff*. It would probably unwise to have something like Santorum neologism on the frontpage, and that is far from the worst possible example. Polygnotus (talk) 04:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, please. Nobody is threatening your freeze peach. There is a significant difference in showing common decency and censorship. skarz (talk) 05:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• Though it was promoted to Featured Article status in November 2020 (prior to public abuse allegations in 2021, though maybe when you say "is involved in a scandal" you're thinking of something else), it is in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page. NebY (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  Smallchief, it was an album by an artist that was chosen to appear at TFA. That's all. In scheduling it, there was absolutely nothing to get anyone riled or upset about. The scandal came after the scheduling, and while TFA should probably have removed it from the mix, it was dealt with promptly once the concern was raised. I'm not sure why all the storm in a teacup so long after the event, but until we get TFA co-ords who have the power of prophesy and can spot a scandal a month or so before it happens, these situations will arise. - SchroCat (talk) 09:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• For those who care, the schedule of TFAs for this month can be found here, with discussion of individual blurbs lower down the page. Any thoughts or suggestions on the general balance of articles scheduled to be TFAs is probably best put here. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I do think we should be date-conscious with some FAs.

Years ago, I was mildly involved in getting Protocols of the Elders of Zion (since defeatured) to FA. That process ended in late January one year; the nearest available scheduling openings were in late March. I got in touch with Raul654, then the featured article director, and warned him to avoid some dates around that time, like Holocaust Remembrance Day and April 20 (Hitler's birthday), which I knew would be a bad look for Wikipedia to have that article on the Main Page. My advice was heeded and the article ran on March 19, 2006, leading to the totally unexpected experience of a lot of people getting mad at us on the talk page for daring to "feature" an article about these documents in the first place. Daniel Case (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bureaucrats: As this is off topic, I think this could probably be dropped onto the talk page, to the overall benefit of the process. - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Please stop sending mentions to every bureaucrat. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't bold shouty instructions like I do this repeatedly or like it's a problem for anyone (for the record, I think this is probably the first time I have ever used this feature). I am trying to help, so try a dose of good faith when dealing with people would be appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 11:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

---

@Bureaucrats: Qs 17 and 18 are either trolling or from an LTA. Or both. They are purely toxic, intent on muddying the waters and causing dissent. Could they be removed ASAP, please? Cheers, ——Serial 14:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes and done. Adjusted numbers accordingly, so 17 and 18 now are the old 19 and 20. Acalamari 14:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much Acalamari. ——Serial 15:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Just cross-referencing the other discussion: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#dynamic polish ip now at second RfA --Joy (talk) 09:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Noting that as of now, the rationale provided by the only oppose has not sent in any evidence to ArbCom to justify their allegations. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems they haven't made any edits since their oppose !vote, nearly six days ago. Most odd. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess, a new, hitherto undiscovered strain of WP:ANIFLU... ;) ——Serial 16:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be catching; now Lightburst has gone down with it too :) ——Serial 17:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

eeek, I am still here for a couple hours. I cannot reschedule a flight just to banter here. And I was just starting to develop an affection for your snarly posts. :) Lightburst (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

H'mmm, fair enough on not being full-time RfA opposer and part-time CEO of a major airline... As Oscar Wilde might (err, or might not) have said, "My snarl, sir, is all yours; although not yours alone!"  ;) ——Serial 20:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, if you look at their editing history, they tend to edit on weekends and only rarely during the week. Now, if we haven't heard anything by Sunday, I think it's time to call out the St. Bernards... NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@NekoKatsun: Not really; they edit almost the same amount, seven days a week, between the hours of 23:00 and 0200 UTC. ——Serial 15:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, apologies, I meant more recently - if you look at their contribs for the past month or so it's been generally weekend-only. Should've been more specific, my bad. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

---

To all of the editors opposing and supporting to make points or protest against other editors, please don't. It will be much more productive to discuss this calmly once the RfA ends and analyze any problems or contradicting interpretations of how our WP:PAGs apply to the whole situation outside of the tense environment the behavioural dispute has engendered. Just loudly shouting back and forth via protest votes and snarky remarks here just stops the community from moving past this in ways which will benefit us long-term, in my opinion.— Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 19:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

---

• I wanted to fake/joke oppose based on the fact that the candidate deprived me from the opportunity of asking the pronunciation of their username. But this might have eroded other oppose votes, so I didn't post in the oppose section. I hope the {ping|bureaucrats} take my fake vote in proper consideration. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  To be honest, I think the time's past for joke !votes...the atmosphere...has changed. It is probably no longer conducive. As once it might have been. Before the aspersions, before the trolling, before the enabling. Happy days, usernamekiran; what an age we live in! :D ——Serial 15:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

---

• Noting I have requested the closing bureaucrat override the automatically generated tally, as it does not accurately reflect the number of editors who oppose the candidate. – Teratix ₵ 16:02, 16 February 2024 (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.