Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 167

Problem with Support 86 on Requests for adminship/Neurolysis
Support 86 is showing the number "1" instead of "86". Does anyone know how to solve this problem? GT5162 (我的对话页) 14:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. When you have a numbered list with comments inside the list, each line has to begin with a # in order to preserve the formatting, so if you see something like this again, just look for a line that does not begin with that symbol. J.delanoy gabs adds  14:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * line = the start of a new paragraph/section... each line doesn't need the #, only each item that is after a hard break.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Common sense
I really don't think DougsTech is acting in good faith, and I'm going to take this oppurtunity to persaud those of you who disagree with me. Doug could easily go to WT:RFA, WP:VP or any other of our many forums, engage in reasoned debate of his views, and try to get something done, which would be much more effective than what he is doing now. Instead he has chained himself to the railings and continues to spam every single RFA with an oppose he has refused at every oppurtunity to clarify. Anybody who questions him is either ignored or linked to somewhere else where he "explained" his opinion (Claims Ryulong's criticized behavior is a rationale to not have any other administrators). Some are even told to stop wasting their time because he's not going to discuss it. Doug has even claimed that administrators are some kind of abusive cabal dedicated to...well, "abuse".

By now, Doug must appreciate exactly what effect his oppose has on RFA participants. Still, he persists in making it even though he knows the bureaucrats ignore it (, "Votes based on too many admins were immediately thrown out, of course.") The only conclusion I can draw from this is that he opposing like this just to upset people.

Couple with this his attempt to insert his opinion here, and subsequent edit warring to try and keep it there (The page had to be protected), I don't think anyone can disagree with me; he is being plain disruptive. If he really wished to change the RFA page text, he should have gone to the talk page after he was reverted in keeping with the bold, revert, discuss cycle. He's been here long enough to know that. Something needs to be done, though I'm not sure what that is. DougsTech, can you please just stop opposing RFAs like this? Patton t / c 10:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we not just leave it please? This page is full of stuff on him.  We need no more thanks.   GARDEN  10:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet people like A Nobody seem convinced he's acting in good faith.-- Patton t / c 10:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What happened to freedom of speech here, not to mention common sense? Doug has a valid opinion which none of us agree with, but it's a valid opinion nonetheless. Every registered user who isn't blocked is permitted to place a vote here, regardless of their opinion on a candidate. If he wishes to oppose everyone based on his valid opinion, let him. As already mentioned above, his vote won't be taken into account by the 'crats, but he's still allowed to make that point if he so wishes. Let's just leave it, because it makes no ****ing difference either way. Good faith, bad faith, it won't affect the outcome of any RfA. — Cyclonenim | Chat 11:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes but it does efect the atmosphere of RFA. And if he is doing to be disruptive it isn't a valid opinion-- Patton t / c 13:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No one has freedom of speech here.  Keegan talk 05:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A Nobody is something of a single-issue campaigner on RfA himself. It's in his own best interests to oppose this, lest it sets a precedent. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? Every one of these in my most recent RfA arguments are different with candidate specific reasons to support:, , , , , , , , , , , etc. As indicated at User:A_Nobody, I look for four different areas as positives (reasons to support) and sometimes take into account others such as WP:AGF and seven different areas as negatives (reasons to oppose).  Please do not mischaracterize my edits.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's obviously not your supports I'm talking about. If you'd like to discuss this further, feel free to drop me a note instead of replying on here (as I think everyone would rather this discussion were brought to a close). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * PLEASE let it go. I've yet to see a single RfA, including my own, where Doug's opinion made the blindest bit of difference either way. He's clarified it before, it's his view, let him have it and leave him be. -- Ged UK  15:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it goes to show that I am not a single issue voter, because more often than not I support candidates rather than oppose them, and yes, even when they don't always agree with me, just as I consider multiple things when not supporting. Given that no one could honestly accuse me of copy and paste stances in RfAs or not actually considering the individual candidates in each RfA, suggesting I am a single issue "voter" is ridiculous and frankly insulting, especially when in many instances when I do oppose as in your RfA, I still think of something nice/positive to say and in several cases have even changed from oppose to neutral or from oppose to support after being persuaded by the candidates that they are worth getting a shot. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, my comment was nothing to do with the 'A Nobody is a serial opposer' claim, just that i wish we would just leave Doug to his view. -- Ged UK  15:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * For Doug to be acting in bad faith he has to not believe what he's claiming to believe. I see no evidence of that.  Is there any?  Or are you just assuming bad faith of him, because you disagree with his evaluations? Wily D  13:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Dear. God. Can we just stop this? How about this... if we as a community can refrain from starting any more DougsTech threads on any of these dramaboards until the end of July, I'll donate $200 to the Foundation (not much, I know). But I'm sure others would offer similar "bounties", and some further good can come from shutting the hell up and moving along with 'business'. --Ali'i 14:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you'll probably be able to keep that $200... it seems pretty safe to me.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Shhhh... don't give away the odds. We want people betting on the hard 8. ;-) --Ali'i 14:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Just my 2¢ guys. Regardless of DougsTech's intentions, their comments/votes do never exceed more than 7 lines a week (+/- 28 words a week). Discussions like this are far more exceeding that 'limit' (mine included). -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up® 16:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with just letting this go because it shows we're willing to tolerate stuff like this. We're shouldn't tolerate disruptiveness at all, doing so opens the door to all kinds of other blanket opposers, who we will also have to put up with. If someone started pasting "Delete too many articles" into every single AfD ther'd be uproar, even though no sane admin would take that comment into account. But there isn't here, in fact, we're actively suppressing critism of his comments! Why?-- Patton t / c 17:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wily_D that's ridiculous. He cold easily start a proposal somewhere. By your logic I could replace every Wikipedia: namespace page with "This shouldn't exist" and it wouldn't be disruptive because I really believe it.-- Patton t / c 18:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have encountered one account that has declared that we have too many articles, asserted he will never argue to keep, and in fact never has argued to keep and does basically copy and paste "delete as cruft" across many Afds (or "delete as unreferenced" even when the articles are referenced...) and for some reason this is tolerated. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, deletionist bogeymen are great fun, Elisabeth. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Who is this user?-- Patton t / c 23:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * He's likely talking about me, although, if so, I don't consider it an accurate statement. G'day, Jack Merridew 10:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not sure this talk page is really the appropriate place (hence, why I didn't single anybody out above), but for the sake of clarity, see Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive412 and yeah, we’re still left with made up nonsense terms like “Buffycruft,” dishonest calls of WP:JNN and plot summary when the article contained two out of universe sections prior to merger, use of WP:ITSCRUFT and WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC rather than any kind of policy or guideline based reason for deletion, etc. The editor in questions said it’s his mission to delete because we have too many articles and “wouldn't participate in an AfD where I would vote 'keep' since my primary goal is to trim down Wikipedia and I have only finite time”.  Indeed, even in cases where drastic improvements have been made to articles under discussion since nomination, he still won’t change his mind.  So we have someone with an uncompromising and closed minded “goal” and “mission” to try to get as much deleted in AFDs as possible and goes about it in an obviously indiscriminate manner.  If that is acceptable, than “oppose as self noms are power hungry” and “oppose as too many admins” ought to be acceptable too.   Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight nom by DougsTech, premature voting dispute
See here and here. Is the official policy that it has to be transcluded for votes (but not questions) to come in? rootology ( C )( T ) 05:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I want to point out that I did not know there was an actual rule against early comments, or I would have held back. There is now no dispute on my part. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hang on -- we've gone from "there are too many admins" to a nomination? Is anyone else as confused as I am? Glass  Cobra  12:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, me. But let's keep our opinions to ourselves for now... we don't need to start a fire here.  C h a m a l  talk 12:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, when I commented on there it was live. One suspects the same goes for the others; we can't be expected to foresee that someone will come along and de-transclude it. –  iride scent  12:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah the commenters probably saw the transclusion and went to vote and when they did it was de-transcluded, and I too am surprised to see DougsTech, nominate somebody.--Giants27 T/ C  12:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose anyone stopped into DougsTech's talk page and read the conversation between ChildofMidnight and Dougstech where one asked the other for a nomination? It happened the normal way, through dialogue. Anyway, help an oldtimer out, what exactly is preventing Dougstech from transcluding the RfA now and CoM accepting the nomination and so on and so forth?--Tznkai (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * COM plans on accepting it overnight. I must say that I find the 'case by case' approach to 'too many admins' a tad confusing! Still, it is COM's RfA not DougTech's. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The way Doug sort-of explained it in that thread, when he says "too many", he means too many of a certain type, i.e. of the type he opposes, whatever that may be. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I've never complained about DougTech's !votes because I figured he kind of voted oppose on only users of a certain type. Ceran llama chat post 00:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically, for Neurolysis he said "Neutral" rather than "Oppose", while making the unqualified statement that there are too many admins. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Number of active admins
I know I've seen stats before on how many admins are actually active, but I can't remember where I saw them. Could someone point me in the right direction?--Aervanath (talk) 06:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Most recent update. Skomorokh  07:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I totally missed the lengthy discussion up at the top of the page. Fishslap!--Aervanath (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And who could blame you :) There's some more in this vein at WP:ADMINSTATS. Regards, Skomorokh  20:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

!Vote tallies
Has anyone ever thought of making a bot that updates these tallies? It seems a huge waste of editors' time to be updating the !vote tallies for every RFA every time someone !votes. Tim meh  !  02:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been proposed several times in the past, and the general consensus (at least the way I see it) is that updating them manually is just as effective. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They should just be done away with, since I thought it was supposed to be a discussion, and have nothing to do with numbers. But... --Ali'i 14:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Law's RfA
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Law. Apparently Law will be incommunicato for a few days so I'm wondering if it would be appropriate to put the RfA on hold somehow; some more input would be appreciated. Thanks, r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 15:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd do it but I think this is something the crats should decide as the ones caring for RFA questions. I have posted a request for crat feedback at their noticeboard. Regards  So Why  22:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to contact their mailing list, as well. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, nevermind; ✅ by Rlevse. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I decided to go and bother him directly once I realized he was online.^^ Hopefully Law's RL will turn well again. Regards  So Why  22:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary Page
This page is really bogus, there is no satisfaction to ramble about useless ideology that basically leads nowhere. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:14px;"> South Bay  <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">  (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone is entitled to an opinion. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 22:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd rather see extraneous opinions on this page for the regulars, than have that stuff on the RfA itself. -- Stani Stani  05:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You know I think I'll stop posting to this page. Who cares what DougsTech does here? He has some solid anti vandal work. One of my articles just got promoted to featured status, and I realise now how easy it is to write FAs, so I'm gonna go and write some more. Sorry for any hassle I may have caused anybody (A Nobody, DougsTech).-- Patton t / c 13:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * South Bay, congrats on adding a really constructive discussion to set an example. Glass  Cobra  03:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

A page is as useful as what is written on it. Oh wait... --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 03:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The "usefulness" of subtopics discussed here has varied widely. Going through the old archives, it seems our forefathers were generally better able to stay on topic. Useight (talk) 04:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Forefathers? o_0 Some of us must be going senile then...  bibliomaniac 1 5  The annual review... 04:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

vote count issue
The automated report for vote count in the Orlady RfA, now open, shows #5 Oppose as being by Rumbletree, when it is by me, Doncram, instead. Don't know if that matters. More seriously, the vote count of Supports includes voter #2, who cancelled his/her vote and converted to "abstain" instead. This appears to throw off the vote total for supporters in the RfA itself and in the automated report. Could this be fixed, please? doncram (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "automated report", but I have removed the paragraph breaks in your initial comment (oppose 5) and Garden's original comment (support 2) looks to be correctly struck. I've also updated the vote tally manually, so that it is now consistent with that of transcluded at the top of this page. Kosher?  Skomorokh  09:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume that Doncram is talking about this, but it appears to be correctly discounting Garden's vote, and counting Doncram's at the moment. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC).
 * Yes, that was what i was referring to, and yes it now seems to be reporting correctly about Garden's and my votes. Thanks. doncram (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Candidate suggestions
I know that we already have a lot of RfA's up ATM, but I thought I'd suggest adding more fuel to the fire; we're seeing excellent candidates recently (i.e. Law, Neurolysis (who recently withdrew), Closedmouth, SpinningSpark, etc.), so I'd like to suggest a few. Thoughts? I'll notify each user of the discussion. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 20:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (Struck per this. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 21:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC))
 * (Struck per this. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 21:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC))
 * (Struck per this. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 21:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC))
 * (Struck per this. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 21:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Have you even bothered to research them? Checked their block logs, asked if they want the bit? Meetare Shappy  Cunkelfratz! 20:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Erm, this should be discussed with them before you put them on the spot and post their name. I don't really see a need to push through as many RfA's as possible because we have a load up currently. iMatthew : <font style="color:#ffffff;background:#465945;"> Chat 20:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ummm, I would suggest a slightly more thorough background check first. Relatively few editors pass RfA six months after indef blocks for sockpuppetry, for instance. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) What Shappy said. If you did the most basic research, you'd see that two of those users have some of the longest block logs of any user on Wikipedia. –  iride scent  20:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever, I've seen people with longer block logs run. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Why was I missed off that list? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Because you are already an admin in everyone's heart and mind. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, Malleus stole the joke I was going to use, and on the research front one user, was blocked over a year ago for sockpuppetry not six months ago like Chris said.--<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27 <font color="#FFC12D">T/ <font color="#FFC12D">C  20:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If we're talking about the same user, he's had three blocks for sockpuppetry, all for socking in AfDs, and the last was exactly six months and four 22 days ago. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh yep, you're right I was talking about Neutralhomer, and I'll assume you're talking about A Nobody.--<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27 <font color="#FFC12D">T/ <font color="#FFC12D">C  20:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A Nobody wasn't blocked for sockpuppetry (unless if you count April 2007, some two years ago...), but he was blocked for an inappropriate username (as User:B988a4299d07c0f61fbc8378965438f0, but that was fixed about a month later. He got blocked by mistake back in February, but aside from that the username issue was his last block. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 20:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, this was rather unexpected :P but I'll go along with this and see what happens. Cyclonebiskit 20:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You're looking at the wrong block log. (admittedly I also counted the months wrongly; now corrected.) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That doesn't matter though, mere facts. Dylan likes him is all that counts. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the nomination for adminship, but with my previous blocks I doubt that anyone would ever consider me for an adminship. If you want to go through the paces, that is fine.  But with my block log, I kinda doubt it will be anything but negative.  But thanks for considering me. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • April 9, 2009 @ 21:12
 * Au contraire! an admin, and he used to be banned; and that was a rare ArbCom indef ban. NH, you got banned for less than what Root was banned for, so I'm pretty sure you'll pass RfA someday. :) --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 21:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not that it really helps, but the above comment Neutralhomer is of the kind that would make me support irrespective. Insightful, honest and clear. And yes, Malleus should have been on the above list as well - a John Smith... - the best admin we never had. Pedro : Chat  21:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I am not interested at this time. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 21:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

FWIW...
Here's why I suggested each user.

--Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 21:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggested because of his prolific content work. At this time of writing, CB (if I may call him that for short) has some 10 DYK's, 5 FL's, 2 FA's, 1 A-Class article, and a nice healthy 38 GA's (one of which I reviewed myself); see User:Cyclonebiskit/Articles for more information. Even if he won't be regularly active in classic admin areas, such as WP:AFD, WP:UAA, WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, etc, I still feel like CB could use the tools to aid him in writing content when they see fit. I've seen  use the tools for the same reason.
 * - Pedro pretty much summed it up, NH is insightful, honest, and clear. His attitude – a former hell – is now IMO perfect for adminship. He's all-around helpful around the wiki, and for that I have fairly recently given him his own day.
 * is an all-around helpful user, long-term experience, checkuser at simple-wiki and a 'crat at Meta.
 * is an all-around help who is extremely insightful and displays excellent judgment despite his rocky past. I gave him his own day once, FWIW.
 * adminship has already been brought up to him by other users, so why not by me?
 * As commented above, you really should have discussed this with these users before posting it here. However, if there are any of them that you think would make a good admin and are willing to run, then go ahead and nominate them. You don't need to get anyone's permission here first. Robofish (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CB definitely wants the mop, he has a userbox on his userpage saying so. I'll do him first; Requests for adminship/Cyclonebiskit should be up momentarily. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 23:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Offline for a few hours and I'm confronted with this! To be quite honest, I'm not sure what's holding me back, but I'm still making certain mistakes here and there and last month my temper flared up in a civility issue (diffs available if you so please). Even though it turned out that my point of view was that correct one, I still didn't deal with it in the best manner possible, and therefore I'm not sure if I'm suited just yet. If someone could help settle those issues in my mind, I'd be more than happy to run again. — Cyclonenim |<font style="color:#5a3596"> Chat 23:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I call dibs on Majorly.  Syn  ergy 23:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Majorly is the user out of the above list that really strikes me as a good administrator. I know it's unlikely to happen, but nonetheless he's my top choice from that list. — Cyclonenim |<font style="color:#5a3596"> Chat 23:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. I just want to see him back in the role he's good at. I think his break is over.  Syn  ergy 23:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the three posts directly above mine. I also think that Cyclonebiskit sounds like a good choice, and Cyclonenim himself is someone who's RfA I've been looking forward to again. Acalamari 23:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Acalamari. :)  Dloh  cierekim  23:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * @ Acalamari; I'm glad you think that CB sounds like a good choice, because he has now been nominated for adminship. Now all we have to do is await his acceptance. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 23:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Majorly was a former admin, you know.  bibliomaniac 1 5  The annual review... 04:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, but I still feel he'd make a good admin at this moment in time. — Cyclonenim |<font style="color:#5a3596"> Chat 10:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether he'd make a good admin or not he'd be exceeding unlikely to get through an RfA right now. RfA has very little to do with choosing good administrators in any event. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Malleus...I find myself agreeing with you more and more each day.  Syn  ergy 15:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Me too actually. There isn't a chance in hell I'd pass RFA. Not that I particularly want to pass RFA - I wouldn't mind being an admin again though. It would be utterly impossible though, consider all the terrible things I've done, and what a disgraceful person I am. I mean, I've only slaved away on this project for nearly 3 years solid, day after day after day, creating and improving hundreds of articles, discussing and improving policies, working on things from RC patrol to GA reviews. Let's face it, someone like that would make a terrible admin. To be honest though I'm actually enjoying working on articles - something which many of the RFA crowd should try doing some time. I prefer that any day to slaving away deleting crap pages, blocking idiots who vandalise, and discussing stupid policies. It's an encyclopedia.  Majorly  talk  16:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Most excellent. Well said.  Syn  ergy 16:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Here, here. — Cyclonenim |<font style="color:#5a3596"> Chat 16:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the mechanism for RFA is deemed to not be broken, but the mood has changed such that the process isn't producing admins fast enough to replace our losses, let alone build up numbers to the normal ratio for a wikipedia; Perhaps the time has come to reduce the threshold for success to a more attainable 50% plus or minus 5% for crats discretion?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should reduce the pass mark, but instead encourage more users who we think are fit to be administrators to run through the process. Most people who run and who are suitable do pass. It's only the controversial users such as Majorly, Ottava etc. who (unfortunately) won't. — Cyclonenim |<font style="color:#5a3596"> Chat 17:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling to think of any recent unsuccessful candidates who scored over 50% who I would really have thought a nett negative if they'd had the mop.  I wonder if anyone with longer memories of RFA is aware of anyone scoring in the 50% - 75% range who subsequently went rogue or otherwise proved untrustworthy? I wouldn't want to continue with this line of thought if there was reason to think that we need RFA to be such a tough test.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  18:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I should point out there's a factor that you don't seem to be considering: adminship itself. There might be users who would only show clear problems, go rogue after they've got adminship for whatever reasons (bullying "lesser" users, et al.) Just for consideration that what they do after RfA isn't exactly representative. -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, fair point, thats partly because I think a pure AB test would be hard to arrange. But I'd be interested in a comparison of admins who failed with 50-75% on their first RFA but subsequently succeeded, v those who either succeeded first time or whose unsuccessful RFAs were below 50%. Another way to test the validity of the process would be to chart the RFA scores of admins who have subsequently had to be desysoped against typical RFA success scores, if RFA is predictive of whether candidates would make good or bad admins I would expect to see a negative correlation between pass margin and compulsory desysops; Though I doubt we have the sample size to get very good confidence levels. This can't be the first time we've discussed reviewing recruitment procedures in light of results, does anyone remember the previous times this has been done at RFA?  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  00:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What happened to that list?
Of users with tons of contributions/old timers that weren't admins? Go by that for long-standing prospects. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 05:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The list, List of non-admins with high edit counts, was marked historical because of this MFD discussion. Graham 87 08:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

My RfA
A number of people, even a few who had opposed, felt I withdrew too soon. My reason for withdrawing was because I did not want a successful RfA (in the event it did succeed) where a number of editors in the community opposed my candidacy. Basically, I didn't want to succeed from a discretionary range. After multiple conversations, I have decided to reconsider. I understand that this is unusual, but I'd like to ask that it be reopened and let it run its course (with the time amended of course). If this is objectionable in any way, shape or form than no harm done and it can remain closed. If it is acceptable by the community, I'd like to ask that an independant editor or crat reopen please. Your thoughts are appreciated. Thank you.  Syn  ergy 17:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there needs to be anything irrevocable about withdrawing. (I personally feel it would be the worst sort of process wonkery to insist that a debate or decision-making process should not be allowed to run its normal course.) The only difficulty I can see is figuring out the new closing date. I hope there won't be any unnecessary drama (or any smart-alec comments about necessary drama) . S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 17:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, if anyone objects feel free to revert.--<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27 <font color="#FFC12D">T/ <font color="#FFC12D">C  17:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * @SheffieldSteel To be fair, I had asked Lara to reopen it. I felt asking an independent editor might be unusual, since what if they !vote later? She opposed me, and I thought that might be acceptable. She has told me she would rather a crat do it. This sounds fine too.  Syn  ergy 17:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In my honest opinion, this is a bad call. You did indeed withdraw prematurely, which reflects poorly on you to begin with, as well as your ability to take constructive criticism; however, to re-open it now shows poorly for your judgment, especially since you had already stated that you would not run again. The fact that you were persuaded otherwise so quickly is troubling, and smacks of even more IRC caballery, which was already a problem. You also posted here, then wasted almost no time asking for it to be re-opened instead of waiting for comments here, as you supposedly desired. Your reasons for withdrawing in the first place, as stated above, are also troubling and don't exactly speak well for your decision. No one's passed RFA unanimously in months, if memory serves, and given how hostile an environment it is, it's pretty unreasonable to withdraw just because you don't want any opposes. Glass  Cobra  17:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * IRC caballery? I'm not sure what the problem here really is. I was prompted to just reopen it, so I asked Lara if she wouldn't mind doing me the favor. There was no harm done in asking her, as I wasn't trying to sway. I noted my bad call to withdraw, so we will have to agree to disagree. At the end of the day, I was the only one effected by my actions. If others were effected, I'll apologize right now.  Syn  ergy 18:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "IRC caballery?" Well, where did these "multiple conversations" take place?  Not on wiki, that's for sure.  I get a worse and worse feeling about all this.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter where a conversation took place, so long as it is accurately depicted on wiki? Who is to say I did not have a phone conversation with another editor, or used yahoo im, or aim, or even skype? None of this matters. Just because something is not on wiki, does not mean it has an ominous feel to it, and there is caballery. You guys get way too paranoid over this IRC issue, where a number of well known, and respected members of the community go to have decent to lame conversation. You do realize these venues existed prior to wikipedia, correct?  Syn  ergy 23:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, these "multiple conversations" haven't been "depicted" at all. You merely stated "After multiple conversations, I have decided to reconsider."  Again, as I commented on your RFA, the problem is the lack of transparency.  I'm quite aware that these venues existed before Wikipedia.  That has nothing to do with it.  However, I'm especially concerned (and I know I'm not the only one) about admins or potential admins who rely on such conversations off wiki, all the more so when those conversations influence decisions and actions on wiki.  I'm not arguing that there is anything sinister about this.  Just that is is opaque, and for that reason problematic.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops. I think I explained this on my talk page. I assumed you seen my explanation there.  Syn  ergy 01:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering the apparent vehemence in your statement that you weren't going to run again, I was personally very surprised to see you change your mind and re-open the RfA. I would be very much interested in seeing the conversation that persuaded you, an option which has been removed. Glass  Cobra  23:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. I meant another RfA, which would be Synergy 3, or RfA 5 for me. I think 5 would be too many, and not something I wish to look forward to. Reopening after 3 hours is not running another RfA altogether. So I'll have to disagree. As to the conversation, I can only say that I believe Lara, Ryan, Peter, Rjd, and a few others had said it was a bad idea to withdraw so early. And since I respect their opinions, along with others in pm, I decided to request that it be reopened. The only thing that was discussed, was why I chose to withdraw and that they disagreed with it. So basically I would point you to Iri's comments on my talk. Respected admins disagreed, so I asked for it to be reverted (basically how an admin should act).  Syn  ergy 01:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether the withdrawal was premature or not—I think it displays integrity to withdraw when there is significant opposition, regardless of the percentage—I agree with GlassCobra. All that will happen now is that your (Synergy's) judgement will be called into question. Which you probably don't need. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There was hardly significant opposition, he was still easily exceeding 85 percent when he withdrew. Glass  Cobra  18:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't referring to the percentage. If Jennaveccia, for instance, had opposed me I'd certainly have withdrawn on the strength of that alone. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I wanted to note that GlassCobra is also a member of the IRC channels, so any "IRC Caballery" would see to be pointless, as there are plenty of people with differing views. I, as a former member of the IRC channels, have not noticed anything untowards from Synergy before I left. My experience with Synergy was not the best and, if I was going strictly off of personal opinion (especially in regards to heated conversations that happened between us on IRC), I would have opposed him. However, I did not. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I frequent only a few other channels that Synergy does, most of them official WP channels. Further, he and I have very little contact and speak to very few of the same people. "IRC caballery" doesn't mean "all IRC is bad," and one IRCer is not necessarily like another. Glass  Cobra  22:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Time amendment?
I was a little surprised to see that when Synergy's withdrawn RFA was reopened, the time was amended. I can understand the reasoning, I suppose, and in this case it didn't make much difference--it's just a matter of three hours. But on the other hand, it doesn't seem an obvious decision; in other cases, it may lead to what would be in effect a significant lengthening of the RFA process. Is there precedent on this? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In the past, requests on hold have resumed with an ending time adjusted to give the standard length of time for participation - i.e., requests are presumed to be open for the full 7 day period unless withdrawn or closed otherwise. <strong style="color:#228B22;">Avruch <strong style="color:#228B22;"> T 18:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call 3 hours significant... I've seen RfA's closed 3 hours early and 3 hours late. I don't think the time adjustment was necessary, but I don't think it was unnecessary.  3 hours is a judgement call on the 'crats part.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments. No, as I said, I don't think that three hours was significant.  But I wondered what would happen if the break had been for a couple of days.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I too wondered about this (but figured what the heck). I assume that RfAs are usually put on hold by a bureaucrat (at least one was recently) and then it makes sense to adjust the time accordingly. However, this was a withdrawn and un-withdrawn RfA. Of course, that brings another RfA that was withdrawn and resubmitted (and is re-re-going on now!). I guess we'll have to wait for the 'couple of days' break to figure out how to handle that. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

A Nobody's oppose vote on Foxy Loxy's RFA
I am slightly disturbed by this oppose by A Nobody on Foxy Loxy's RFA. In it, A Nobody appears to at first concede that the candidate makes acceptable judgements at AFD more often than not, which is standard fare for A Nobody, before citing that the candidate was a poor judge of character, and offering Foxy Loxy's Support !vote on Kww's RFA as evidence of this. A Nobody goes on to say that the candidate is "not persuaded by overwhelmingly convincing arguments". Perhaps unsurprisingly, A Nobody has also opposed on Kww's RFA.

Now don't get me wrong, there are legitimate reasons to oppose Kww, and I suppose that someone being a serially poor judge of character might be a legitimate reason to Oppose someone. In this case though, the oppose seems to simply be based on Foxy Loxy offering an opinion in an RFA that A Nobody happens to deal with. Seeing as at time of writing almost two out of every three people to comment on Kww's RFA have expressed a "Support" opinion, I hardly think that "overwhelmingly convincing arguments" can be shown to have been made. It appears to be more of a tit-for-tat opposition rather than serious concern over Foxy Loxy's ability to do the job. I asked A Nobody for clarification on his opinion on the RFA, fearing that I may have been simply misunderstanding something innocent, to which he replied that the user had "demonstrated poor judgment that could influence having a potentially disastrous admin by not being convinced by overwhelming evidence".

I know that in all probability this Oppose will be glossed over or not considered by the closing bureaucrats, and Foxy Loxy's support range is high enough that this one Oppose vote is likely not going to make any difference. But I feel that if we open the gates to these sort of comments at RFA, the already sometimes combative atmosphere could well degenerate even further. I also note that I am not the only one to have called A Nobody out on this topic in the RFA, but I felt it best to bring it here to avoid derailing that particular RFA and generate some discussion over whether this is considered unacceptable more generally.

Full disclosure: I have had my disagreements with A Nobody before, and he was one of the two people to oppose my own RFA this year.

Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC).


 * ................ um....... why not just disagree with him and state it on the RfA like everyone else? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "I felt it best to bring it here to avoid derailing that particular RFA". Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC).


 * Today, I will only comment to support the idea that discussion of this really should take place outside of Foxy Loxy's RFA. I'll feel freer to comment in greater detail in 18 hours or so.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm tending to think that A Nobody's comment regarding the !vote are a bit over the top. Except in extreme cases, I do not believe that an editor !voting on an issue should be held against him or should be an issue.  By the by, that includes Kww's !vote against Casliber when he was an ArbCom candidate.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * have to agree ... not a proper convincing argument to use, but to each their own. — Ched : ?  05:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is overdue; Requests for comment/A Nobody. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 06:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reexamined the candidate's edit history and will WP:AGF with the candidate's support in the other RfA as I am if not persuaded that the candidate has more positives than negative. As such, I have switched to neutral pending how the other nine opposes are addressed.  It's a holiday after all, and I'd rather give someone the benefit of the doubt.  So, Happy Easter!  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ... yes, but what about the other 364 days of the year? I'd like to hold this open to allow Kww the chance to comment when his RfA closes later today, and then see if we should adopt Jack's suggestion to procede to a RfC concerning A Nobody.  I'd have some comments in that RfC, but will withhold pending Kww's contribution, if he sees fit.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My god, is WT:RFA's only function to be a three-ring drama circus? Let the closing 'crat take it into account, complain on the RfA if you must but this constant whining about opposes really gets old. They are opinions—last time I checked, everyone was allowed one, poorly informed as they could be. -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's part of a disturbing trend. I thought, when Kurt Weber was banned (primarily, if not only, for his opposition at RfA) that we might see more concerted effort to bar controversial opinions here, and it seems we are. DougsTech, A Nobody, Friday (ageism) etc. There are structural problems with RfA: the tendency for huge amounts of questions turning the request into an examination, the fact that actual discussion is discouraged, and the general problem that lack of any common criteria makes the process about popularity more than anything else, etc. These unpopular opinions should be treated as the ripple they are. When they are brought here, whatever the intention of the initial poster, censorship and banning are where the discussions seem to lead. The best response is to just ignore them if you disagree and move on. <strong style="color:#228B22;">Avruch <strong style="color:#228B22;"> T 15:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) IMO, A Nobody usually makes very pertinent points in his !votes, both when he opposes as well as when he supports. I don't always agree with his conclusions but I always read his opinion and am disappointed that we seek to comment on one !vote that was perhaps not kosher or just not well explained. Regardless of the quality of his !vote rationale, I remain convinced that picking on oppose voters is detrimental to the RfA process because it scares away oppose !voters and leaves only crudmugeonly editors opposing an RfA and we lose valuable information in the process. An image of a squalling pink thing in a large puddle of soapy water on the sidewalk leaps to mind. Let people !vote anyway they want and, unless they are impolite, stop worrying about what the !vote says. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * very well stated. — Ched : ?  16:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If an editor votes for a very bad reason, it will fail to convince others to vote the same way. If it does convince them, then it wasn't such a bad reason after all. If an oppose reason is bad enough, it may even generate some support for the candidate.  I will say that I have responded in such a way to one or two of A Nobody's opposes--voted neutral or support to make clear I do not share his opinions.  Badgering someone about how he votes is like beating up on voters coming out of the polls who make it clear they've voted against your guy. It's every bit as much intimidation as beating up on them ahead of the election.  To bring a RfC based on any polite RfC vote is interfering  with the RfC process -- and thus disruptive. DGG (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

My RFA is closed now, so no one can accuse me of making statements here in an effort to sway the result. First, mine went 76:49:9. That means that neither opposing nor supporting me for adminship is an obvious sign of bad judgment. Even so, A Nobody is allowed to believe that it is, and, if that was the only thing he had done in connection with this, I'd agree wholeheartedly with just letting it lie. The real problem is that it is misbehaviour from my RFA spilling over into Foxy Loxy's. Every one is allowed to oppose me, and there are some legitimate reasons to do so, primarily concerns over whether my perspective on inclusionism will have an undue effect on my judgment. A Nobody, however, went well beyond the normal behaviour of simply opposing, and went to the point of grandstanding. Hell, he used my forbearance in commenting here as evidence against me. First he opposes, then mischaracterizes my block log (a block reversed as "my error" by the blocking admin can scarcely be described as being blocked for edit warring). He then added a legitimate, albeit strange link to his argument. He then demands a pledge, asks me if I've stopped beating my wife, badgers too many times to create links for, revamps his arguments again. Then, in order to get a new spot to argue against me, he claims to be "stunned" by one of my support votes. This claim is hard to take seriously, given that A Nobody has obviously been reading every support vote, and it took 5 days for him to be stunned.

People should feel free to oppose at RFAs, to oppose for any reason that convinces them, and should feel free to explain those reasons to others. DGG, for example, opposed my RFA, and made several edits in support of his opposition, and several other edits questioning other editors' reasons. From all appearances he did so in good faith, trying to make his point accepted and understood by others, and did so within the bounds of my RFA. There's a style, and a structure, and a timing to A Nobody's opposition that deserves discussion: from the above description at my RFA, from spilling over into Foxy Loxy's, to mentioning his opposition to an ongoing RFA at ANI. It's not a matter of just having his !vote use questionable logic.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So now that your RfA closed as unsuccessful and as my oppose was agreed with by multiple editors (if it was really baseless, it would not have persuaded anyone), you go after me here as what revenge? I really hoped you would reflect on the RfA's failure and realize, hey, maybe if you were more conciliatory and understanding with your opposition you would not have received such determined opposes.  I have changed stances in several RfAs.  I have argued to support candidates in a subsequent RfA after opposing them in an earlier one.  If you hope to suceed a third time, I strongly urge you reconcile with those who opposed you rather than retaliate against them and perpetuate the tensions, because I for one am whole-heartedly welcome to reconsidering my thoughts on you should you take the proactive path and I'm sure many others will look favorably on such an approach as well.  Don't prove me right about holding grudges.  Be the big man here and show me and everyone else that you would rather agree to disagree or maybe even destroy enemies by making them your friends as Abraham Lincoln once said.  I'm always receptive to good faith and I believe many others would be as well.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm curious about the fact that A Nobody's updating the tally on Kww's nomination followed an oppose in almost every instance (I think it is 18 our of 19). Given the fact that Kww's candidacy attracted about 60 percent support, this seems statistically unlikely.  Not sure how this advantaged A Nobody's militant oppositon of Kww, but it is interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting how, because you updated the tally after many of the supports:, , , , etc. So, someone who supported him and seems to take issue with the main opposer was quick to update after many supports.  Perhaps its statistically unlikely because you beat me and everyone else for that matter to the punch with updating the tally following the new supports.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I updated after opposes, as well, and even after a neutral .  I merely updated when I saw it wasn't up to date, and the majority are probably supports because Kww got majority support.  Why would you only update after an oppose?  I can't figure out what the advantage is, and yet you did it.  Very strange.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Because every single other time somebody else updated first. One editor actually updated by discounting an oppose (DougTech's) from the tally.  You'd think that would be a bigger concern.  And in any event, I didn't update after every oppose because I think there's an advantage (and after all as you say above, I literally didn't update after "every" oppose), because as you ask, what would that be?  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. I was just struck that you seemed to always update after an oppose, and thought it odd.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, at worst it was subconscious, because it's not something I thought about. Anyway, though, I do hope that the results will persuade the candidate to take a different approach with the opposers, because even with as adamant as I was there, if I see a much more proactive and understanding approach when dealing with those of opposing wikiphilosophies, I would gladly reeevaluate my opinions of him as I have in the past when I either changed stance during an RfA or decided to support someone I had opposed in a previous RfA.  My oppose focused on a grudge-like combative attitude.  The way forward is to reach out proactively so that I and others can say that he learned from the RfA and in fact wants to move forward.  I am absolutely receptive to that.  Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 01:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Still an amazing coincidence, akin to having a coin land heads a couple of dozen times in a row. I'm afraid I disagree iwth you; Kww has nothing to apologize for.  Judging from what I have seen crawl out from the woodwork during his RfA, he is to be applauded for his self-restraint, if that is typical of what he has to deal with on a daily basis in his work.  Best, --Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really as I did upate the support and neutral numbers in (I increased the support number by 3 versus the oppose only by 1, so not sure what I could possibly be suggesting there),, , , and .  If you're assuming some kind of bad faith, you'd think I wouldn't have bothered to also increase the supports and neutrals ever, let alone multiple times.  Anyway, take care!  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean if you were truly intending something nefarious by it, you would have given a false count? Best, --Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, what are you implying by this line of discussion anyway? Who cares who updated and when? If the count is accurate, does it matter? Let it go. <strong style="color:#228B22;">Avruch <strong style="color:#228B22;"> T 13:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think discussion here will prove very fruitful. I implore folks to just use the dispute resolutions chain. We are unlikely to come up with some satisfactory (to all parties) outcome here at WT:RFA. Protonk (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

inappropriate canvassing
This whole thread has gotten out of line and in some places crossed the line of civility. The RfA in question has now been closed thus I see no further need to keep this thread open here at RfA. If you feel that you need to continue to discuss this, please take it to WP:ANI or another more appropriate venue.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I notice postings by User:Kaldari that appear to verge on inappropriate canvassing in an ongoing RfA. He/she, nominator in the RfA, posted a 2nd time at WikiProject Tennesee. He/she just posted at nominee's Talk page and at 5 other talk pages. In at least one case, that is commending the person for a recent support vote. In at least one other, it is calling for the person to come vote. The multiple postings have effect of putting out multiple notices of the RfA selectively at pages where Kaldari thinks other potential supporters may notice. I just posted a request to stop at User talk:Kaldari. (Disclosure: My own previous mention of the same Rfa to two persons (one supporter and one opposer) has been discussed at my own Talk page.) I am not very familiar with practices about canvassing in RfA's but what Kaldari is doing appears potentially wrong to me. doncram (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked through the recent contribs and saw - 1, 2, and 3, immediately came to my attention. They read - ("Thought you might want to know about Orlady's Request for adminship. Kaldari (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)")
 * Alansohn was contacted at 17:53 and this was made 21 minutes later. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the comment on WP:Tennessee: "As most of you are probably familiar with Orlady's work on Tennessee articles, I thought I'd drop a note that I have nominated her for adminship." and "If you haven't voted in Orlady's adminship nom yet, this is your last chance. It ends tomorrow". Ottava Rima (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was trying to make sure that the people who are most familiar with Orlady and her work on Wikipedia were aware of the RfA. All of my notices were neutral in wording, but as my actions could arguably be construed as vote-stacking, I will cease and desist. Kaldari (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:WIKIPEDIAISNOTCHINA. RfA is an election, and I see no reason that the only voters allowed should be those who happen to hang out at the polling station. Let the people campaign! Hiberniantears (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Here: ""Advertising" your RfA: Some editors do not like to see an RfA "advertised" by the nominee on other people's talk pages or on IRC. RfA is not a political campaign. The intent is to develop consensus. Impartial evaluation of a candidate, not how popular they are, is the goal. Canvassing is often looked down upon." Ottava Rima (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And where did that get us? Ten archived threads on DougsTech. The time for Revolution is now. Aux armas! Hiberniantears (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, RfA is not a vote nor a campaign. Your statements above are 100% against what RfA is about. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why it is called a Revolution! Hiberniantears (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So, you hope to overthrow the RfA system by canvassing for supports for Orlady to ensure that she becomes an admin? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing else has worked... why the hell not? FRREEEDDDOOOMMMM!!!!! Hiberniantears (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling that WP:REVOLUTION, can be written by someone. :)--<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27 <font color="#FFC12D">T/ <font color="#FFC12D">C  20:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are kidding, right? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Largely, though I do sympathize with RfA canvassing on a limited basis (i.e. an editor posting to a project page on which they have a solid reputation). Hiberniantears (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * These comments about a revolution on Wikipedia are unacceptable for me. That is contrary to any and all values that Wikipedia stands for and it is contrary to any and all personal values I have about democratic behaviour. This is not at all funny Hiberniantears, even if it was meant as a joke, you picked the wrong topic. Your user page states that you are an admin? Is that a joke, too? HaHa. Not funny! Have you ever considered stepping down from that post? You should! doxTxob \ talk 00:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This suggestion is silly and uncivil.  Lychosis  <font color="#000000">T / C 00:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe I just do not share the same sense of humor about that topic. Maybe I was just kidding. I struck part of my comment not to raise too many concerns. doxTxob \ talk 01:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Update - BQZip01 just supported at 19:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC), 1 hour and 37 minutes after being contacted. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Where's my commendation? In all seriousness, it runs counter to the traditions of the RfA process to let others find out about a candidacy for adminship in any way other than running across the RfAs of people one knows at random while on new pages patrol, or by just camping out at WP:RFA.  However, what Kaldari did isn't really all that disruptive (see WP:CANVASS), and I, for one, would welcome the input of other users who have had extensive experience with a particular editor, especially when an RfA is running as close as this one is.  A neutrally-worded notice on the talk page for the candidate's primary project seems like just the way to let that sort of people know that if they have an opinion, they have the opportunity to weigh in.  Individual-level, targeted canvassings would certainly call for the application of a wet trout at high velocity, but other than that, this is a tempest in a teapot.  <font color="#285991">--Dynaflow   <font color="#285991">babble  21:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are putting up messages, chances are you would only do that to those who are favorable to you. Do it like everyone else and put a simple talk page notice on your own talk page as instructed. If someone cares about RfA they will vote on them regularly. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I've removed the notices from WikiProject Tennessee. I would remove the notices from the user talk pages as well, but it would be pointless (as their message notifications will be triggered regardless). Kaldari (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do it like everyone else and put a simple talk page notice on your own talk page as instructed. No, that is not how "everybody else" does it. Everybody else does it by going to a friend's talk page, who has already voted in the desired direction, and starts a new thread labeled "RE User:X's RfA" thereby alerting everybody who watches said talk page that an RfA is ongoing and how the two users invovled view the RfA.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (e.c. x 2) Those of us who think RfA is important but do not spend huge amounts of time here or deign to jump into the discussion unless it looks like an RfA is going to be very, very close for someone we either think really should, or should not be, an admin, do appreciate being able to hear about these things on other channels from time to time rather than only finding out the results after the fact. Again, individual targeting ≈ bad.  General notice on a wikiproject → why not?  "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion" (WP:CANVASS).  I don't think you could anticipate a uniform reaction from an entire state wikiproject to a RfA, so where is the problem here?  <font color="#285991">--Dynaflow   <font color="#285991">babble  21:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That is why there are various counters that you can add to your talk page---or, heck, the page of a newsletter/wikiproject that would alert people to who is currently involved in RfA's.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL, okay, I admit, that is a regular tactic, Balloonman. However, they still do post the thing on their own talk page. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Further update - Ichabod, a member of the Tennessee WikiProject has supported at 21:41, 14 April 2009. That is three supports that are possibly attributed to talk page messages. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What disturbs me very much here is the comment about a revolution and "FREEEEDDDOOOMMM!" [emphasis in the original] (shortened that quote a little). Really, that is not the spirit of Wikipedia in my opinion. Wikipedia is indeed about freedom, the freedom for everyone on this planet to have access to knowledge gathered here, but not the questionable kind of freedom referred to above. The freedom on Wikipadia is characterized by consensus and by working together, the freedom at Wikipedia is caused by cooperation and agreements, not revolution. Revolution is a process in which few who consider themselves an elite take over to make changes that would only serve themselves best. Wikipedia is about being bold, but revolution is to far, much to far beyond bold and a misinterpretation. I am inclined to ask, what "FREEEEDDDOOOMMM!" [emphasis in the original] user Hiberniantears is talking about. Let the community know!


 * What also disturbs me is how very valid concerns about the RfA process and canvassing as raised by Doncram are not taken seriously by Kaldari et al. who just talk his comments down and lable them as "hypocricy", as done by Kaldari (User talk:Kaldari). I was called a "troll" and "silly" in the RfA discussion and questioned about my involvement in the attack site against Orlady on my talk page to which I have responded to the users satisfaction. I absolutely share the concerns Doncram revealed and if Doncram had not brought them up I would have. I do not at all like to see a development on Wikipedia where established admins use every method to widen their inner circle with unfair and undemocratic means. Canvassing is unfair and it is undemocratic and I do not like that user Kaldari is actually bold enough to do that in public. Just imagine doxTxob (that is me) or Doncram had left a similar message on some project page? What uproar that would have caused. If Kaldari sincerely is of the opinion that his or her actions influencing the outcome of an RfA are proper, that user should consider stepping back from adminship as that move puts their qualification in a questionable light.


 * The purpose of an RfA is for the community to find out if the candidate is fit for the job and to bring reasons for support and reasons for opposition that would give the voting public an overview of the proposed admin's capabilities, and might predict future behavior once that admin is equipped with powerful tools. Talking down or disqualifying the person in opposition as described above as well as canvassing support votes to vote down any opposition is not the way to go. Opposition is important to make sure that a unilateral revolution can not avoided. Anything else is not in the sprit of Wikipedia, anything else is unfair, anything else does not conform with the spirit of democracy.


 * It might be a good idea to make supporters at an RfA argue in length for the candidate not just in courtesy comments. Today, a one liner that is not at all loaded with arguments but does just reflect sympaty or the expectation of getting their back scratched sooner or later is enough as a support vote. That is wrong! Take care and happy editing, doxTxob \ talk 00:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Y-you did read that they were kidding, right?  Lychosis  <font color="#000000">T / C 00:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That was not a good topic for a joke. Not at all! Are you part of the revolution against Wikipedia, too? (That was a joke. Do you find it funny?) doxTxob \ talk 01:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) You have behaved like a silly troll. Have you already forgotten Questions 10, 10a, 10b and 11, in which you asked Orlady categorically to assent to being checkusered to rule out your conspiracy theory? Yes, you have satisfied me that you were not the author of the two anti-Orlady "outing" websites. But you have the audacity to use this as an argument? Is this the standard to which you want to be held, whether you have committted illegal off-site harassment or not? --Hans Adler (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If Orlady has nothing to hide, why not ask at least? Do you think that the Wikipedia community should just rely on the candidates word? If you like to call me a "silly troll", I would say that this is nasty of you but I cannot keep you from saying it. I stand for the values of Wikipedia and there is something not going right here. I do not care what standards you apply to judge me, but using words like cited above I do not find very helpful for the discussion. I mentioned the question you asked me to demonstrate how opposing opinions in the RfA are treated and voted down or talked down, how opposers are being disqualified and to show that opposing parties receive more scrutiny than the actual candidate. I did not call you anything, did I? Hey, Hans Adler, I mentioned before that I appreciate your openness and honesty and I still do. doxTxob \ talk 01:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the coat rack discussion below, that is in line with my view of your actions. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Equally strange that you would take such offense at my horsing around with Ottava, when it was Doncram's thread. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is obvious that Doncram and Dox are equally stressed by strained matters between them and Orlady lately, and recent events have pushed them to the point of taking things in a too quick manner. DoxTxob, Doncram, please take this advice and relax a bit, possibly take a day or two off, don't worry too much, and take things a little slower. This is only an encyclopedia, after all, so don't let it get to you. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that sentiment, Ottava. It is stressful, not knowing what are practices here, and trying to sort out what to say or do.  The only explicit guidance i found about canvassing was the advice at wp:canvass to ask the canvasser to stop, which i did.  Beyond that I and non-regulars like Doxtxob need to depend on the regulars here to take the further appropriate steps.  Thank you Ottava for taking the recent further step of noting in the RfA the 3 subsequent support votes that are somewhat tainted, with mild notes that give subsequent voters some due pause, and which appear to adequately put the issue forward for whoever closes the RfA.  I hope whoever closes does acknowledge and address this issue.  I am further glad I posted it here, so that my note at the nominator's talk page would not be dismissed, as it appeared that the nominator first tried to do with replies to my Talk page and to Talk page of one other commenter.  I appreciate also that Kaldari, upon further consideration, acknowledged the appearance of vote-stacking, and stopped.  However the 6 notes at user talk pages stayed in place.  I think the vote is somewhat tainted by this, although it is not possible to roll back the clock and see how it would have unfolded differently.  I don't know what further steps should have been taken immediately during the RfA or what should take place afterward.  Per your suggestion, Ottava, i pretty much do want to bow out of this here, and leave this to others.  Thanks. doncram (talk) 05:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. FYI, a couple hours after Kaldari removed his note at the Tennessee Wikiproject, i chose to make an innocuous-type other comment about something unrelated there, so that Kaldari's self-reversion would not show as the latest edit in peoples' watchlists.  Not too much later (and I assume after noticing my edit), Orlady herself made a different innocuous-type other comment at the wikiproject, which I thought was fine and good, removing my name from the watchlist. doncram (talk) 05:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hiberniantears, I might just not have the same sense of humor and I did not find the revolution comment funny, that's all. This is not Doncram's thread! It is not Doncram's, it is not Ottava's, is not doxTxob's, it is not Hiberniantears', it is not Jimbo's, it is a talk page to which every Wikipedian can contribute who cares about the topic. It is our thread! This is a discussion at Wikipedia at Talk:Requests for Adminship where any topic can be discussed regarding general questions or concerns about Requests for Adminship. Doesn't that mean that anyone is free to contribute here? And if I see something that I do not like, I have the right to object to it, right? Or have I missed some revolution in the meantime? (... just kidding about the revolution part here, trying to be funny myself!) doxTxob \ talk 04:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know... I think if Jimbo wanted to claim ownership of the thread few people would stand in his way. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 05:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

further, coverup?
In response to my notice to User talk:Kaldari, Kaldari replied to me there. I further replied. Kaldari, an administrator, or another administrator with ability to remove the edit history, removed my reply, and it does not show there any longer. Basically, i reponded to Kaldari's negative claim about me there, and I said something to the effect that he/she, as an administrator involved in RfA's should know better about policy on canvassing in RfAs. In context of this discussion here, and his/her accusation outstanding against me at his/her Talk page, linked, I think it doesn't seem right to suppress my response there. doncram (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That would require oversight, no? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Its possible to delete edits. An administrator can see if it happened. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about this? --Kbdank71 20:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe he is referring to an entry that would appear here unless he was confused and responded on the wrong talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Doncram, you responded on your own talk page, not mine. There is no deleted edit, and certainly no "coverup". Kaldari (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur, and I checked his deleted contributions and there is nothing there. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I guess that explains it, Kaldari duplicated the discussion with his accusation against me. Specifically Kaldari copied my posting at his Talk page plus his response at his Talk page, to my Talk page, and i responded there, thinking it was at his Talk page.  Then, going to his Talk page to see if there was further followup, I saw nothing, and checked edit history and found nothing.  I was sure i had posted it.  It is confusing. Since then, there is now at least one other comment responding to Kaldari's accusation at his Talk page, and I don't know if there are further responses to the split version over at my Talk page. doncram (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, further, I did not casually make the suggestion that an administrator had removed the edit. I first considered the likelihood that I had composed a response but not saved it sucessfully.  Paging back in one of the windows i have open, i found that my response was in fact posted (contradicting the edit history that I was seeing in the other window), and I was printing that and otherwise trying to capture evidence that some deletion had happened.  It did not occur to me that the discussion was copied over with no indication that it was moved or copied.  I do find that confusing, as do others apparently who are posting in both parts of the split discussion.  For the record here, what I posted in response to Kaldari's accusation of hypocrisy on my part, was:

I had hesitated to question your 2nd posting at the Wikiproject, due to the discussion already at my own Talk page about whether my notice to that Opposer plus my notice to a Supporter constituted canvassing. That has been discussed rather fully at my Talk page, and i have consequently informed myself more fully about wp:canvass guideline now. But your multiple posings in at least 6 selective places (the nominee's Talk plus 5 persons you judge as supporters or possible supporters) appears to be possibly going over the line of what should be acceptable, and could suggest you are ready to post more that way, so i thought i should speak up. You are an administrator, involved in RfAs, and you should know better, in advance. I posted mention of your possibly inappropriate canvassing at the general RfA talk area (already with disclosure of that discussion at my Talk page, and i think timestamps should show that was before your counter-accusation here). You may wish to comment there. doncram (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The italicized sentence is my italics added now, to indicate which is a sentence I inserted a few minutes later in another edit. doncram (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand the confusion. No harm done I suppose. If you would like to remove this section, I would not object. (Or feel free to leave it.) Kaldari (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

comment (loaded title suppressed)
(2nd edit conflict: I am retitling this section opened by Hans Adler per reasoning below --Doncram) Perhaps it's worth mentioning that Orlady's RfA contains long essays by Doncram about instances where Orlady disagreed with him and he interpreted her actions in the worst possible way. Even more space is used for DoxTxob's conspiracy theory: Orlady logged out to replace two other users' talk pages with "BITCH", and/or used a sockpuppet to spam The Vagina Monologues with a lay performance. Apparently, to disguise these activities she also (stupidly) attacked herself on her own talk page when logged out, and made the spam edits in an incredibly clumsy way. When a new user spotted this and opened a request for check user against Orlady, the matter was covered up by blocking the new user as a Jvolkblum sock and renaming the RfCU to make it harder to find. (The renaming is actually true.) These two topics dominate the RfA.

Certainly worth mentioning is the following timeline: Doncram, if you do some searching in your bathroom, I am sure you can find a mirror somewhere. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC) [more details about conspiracy theory. 21:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)]
 * 28 February – Orlady's first edit to her RfA page
 * 26 March – WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive187: Doncram's first Jvolkblum post
 * 1 April – WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive188: Doncram's second Jvolkblum post
 * 1 April – DoxTxob requests arbitration on Jvolkblum, naming Orlady as an involved party (rejected unanimously, archived 4 April )
 * 7 April – A message on Orlady's talk page mentions her RfA
 * 8 April – Orlady's RfA goes live
 * 10 April – WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive529: Doncram's third Jvolkblum post opens with a statement containing the following paragraph:
 * The arguments for or against AfDing New Rochelle area articles are also somewhat under discussion within ongoing Requests for adminship/Orlady‎, where links to 2 previous wp:an discussions and a request for arbitration regarding New Rochelle area articles, one or more persons involved in a sockpuppet case, and enforcement by Orlady and Wknight94 can be found. In the arbitration request (declined), it was offered by one arbcom member that perhaps a change of enforcement type personnel might be appropriate. [my bold]
 * How does the above involve any posting of messages on other people's talk pages to tell them to come vote after it goes up? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It does not. What it involves is massive disruption, including one Arbcom request and 3 AN/ANI threads, trying to get Jvolkblum unblocked, as coatracks for saying negative things about Orlady before a large audience. I believe it was largely ineffective because everybody realised how stupid the accusations were, but it was still foul play. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's also worth mentioning that it's much easier to derail what would otherwise be a successful RfA by extensive trolling, than to have a significant positive effect on a candidate's chances. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is no evidence of canvassing, then your post is off topic. This is not RfC. This is the RfA talk page. Please keep conversations on this topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion. I am sure you meant it to be constructive. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is very on topic and has much to do with this RfA. The section header may not be the most accurate, but that's a poor reason to send this discussion elsewhere. Hans Adler is right, bombing an RfA is easy. Let's first see what Doncram has to say. He has yet to reply. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 22:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict, twice) I don't know the protocol about this either, but I would appreciate if someone could re-title this section to something less loaded. (After edit conflict, and seeing that Adler's little followon comment seems perhaps aimed at rebroadcasting the loaded title, i am re-titling this section)
 * Also, Hans Adler's accusations contain mis-characterizations and inaccuracies that I will not respond to here. I had tried, above, to raise an important issue, politely enough, without further tainting the ongoing RfA.  Hans Adler's post here is further advertising some use of swear language that i myself, and probably others, hadn't been aware of, and he is making allegations of behavior that seem to call for response but cannot adequately be responded to here, the wrong forum for the accusations.  Adler's post seems wp:incivil and highly off-topic. doncram (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Swear language"? Kaldari (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What is your f***ing point with that question? I am writing quickly to try to get in response before edit conflicts, sorry i don't have time to find careful wording to characterize Hans Adlers allegations about allegations that i wasn't familiar with, in what i view as the wrong forum to post and discuss his views. doncram (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL.--<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27 <font color="#FFC12D">T/ <font color="#FFC12D">C  22:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * :-(... ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 22:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how half of it deals with ANI and for issues not related, I do not understand how you can honestly say that this topic has anything to deal with WT:RFA. Wadester, seriously, how could you even attempt to rationalize it? The claim isn't even a conspiracy theory as it lacks even the slimmest connection between the various actions. It just throws dates up there without any rhyme or reason. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as off topic since the canvassing issue was raised by doncram who has serially raised a number of issues at this RfA. Hans Adler is just pointing that out. Perhaps doncram is right about the canvassing and it is the messenger that is being shot - but boy - wolf - cry - no response is what leapt to my mind when I first saw this thread. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 03:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The two topics are unrelated except that Doncram has had issues with Orlady before. The canvassing was problematic, and it has been addressed so far as I can see. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole rant, IMO, is pointless. The one (and only one) issue to consider here is: did the so-called "canvassing" influence the decision by closing bureaucrat? In case of an ongoing RFA, is it capable of doing? Do you know it for sure? I don't. I suggest inviting a bureaucrat or two and asking them: do they feel that what happened would otherwise affect their decision? If not, case closed. NVO (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you responding to me? I'll bite either way. Throughout her RfA, Orlady was hounded by DoxTxob and Doncram in the way I described, and also by Ottava Rima. She responded quietly to every absurd accusation. Her accusers became more an more aggressive, and managed to make a big scene which affected a lot of editors' votes. We know this because they said so; some of them even changed their vote (one way or the other) because of this theatre performance. I believe bureaucrats cannot discard the affected votes. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, this thread became more messier than my head... where was I? right, I responded to Doncram's opening speech. Personalities don't matter; the procedure is designed in a way that relies on a purportedly divine creature saying the final verdict, so why should we question them? NVO (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that the canvassing issue was first brought up during this RfA by Orlady at doncram's talk page, regarding two of his edits. Doncram then researched this issue and agreed that while he wasn't sure his actions amounted to canvassing, he would refrain from further similar notifications.  Only then did he, reasonably enough in my view, comment that Kaldari was engaging in similar edits in a more widespread manner.  So, the first accuser of "so-called "canvassing"" was in fact, Orlady herself. Lvklock (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.