Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Dirtlawyer1

X!'s Edit Counter

Username:	Dirtlawyer1 User groups:	autoreviewer, rollbacker First edit:	Apr 19, 2009 15:19:49 Unique pages edited:	5,943 Average edits per page:	9.22 Live edits:	54,693 Deleted edits:	129 Total edits (including deleted):	54,822

Namespace Totals

Article	48616	88.89% Talk	1517	2.77% User	126	0.23% User talk	1197	2.19% Wikipedia	686	1.25% Wikipedia talk	515	0.94% File	42	0.08% File talk	6	0.01% Template	1474	2.70% Template talk	301	0.55% Category	201	0.37% Category talk	12	0.02% Namespace Totals Pie Chart Month counts 2009/04	1 	2009/05	0 	2009/06	0 	2009/07	2659 	2009/08	2279 	2009/09	667 	2009/10	64 	2009/11	70 	2009/12	358 	2010/01	464 	2010/02	974 	2010/03	1969 	2010/04	1377 	2010/05	939 	2010/06	1093 	2010/07	2488 	2010/08	1855 	2010/09	1333 	2010/10	1539 	2010/11	1424 	2010/12	1012 	2011/01	1121 	2011/02	1021 	2011/03	1077 	2011/04	904 	2011/05	1304 	2011/06	1206 	2011/07	1155 	2011/08	1357 	2011/09	1068 	2011/10	846 	2011/11	1227 	2011/12	2555 	2012/01	1885 	2012/02	1164 	2012/03	1081 	2012/04	1053 	2012/05	906 	2012/06	1241 	2012/07	1242 	2012/08	763 	2012/09	2526 	2012/10	2002 	2012/11	1254 	2012/12	672 	2013/01	1389 	2013/02	109

X!'s Edit Counter

Username:	Dirtlawyer1 User groups:	autoreviewer, rollbacker First edit:	Apr 19, 2009 15:19:49 Unique pages edited:	5,943 Average edits per page:	9.22 Live edits:	54,693 Deleted edits:	129 Total edits (including deleted):	54,822

Namespace Totals

Article	48616	88.89% Talk	1517	2.77% User	126	0.23% User talk	1197	2.19% Wikipedia	686	1.25% Wikipedia talk	515	0.94% File	42	0.08% File talk	6	0.01% Template	1474	2.70% Template talk	301	0.55% Category	201	0.37% Category talk	12	0.02% Namespace Totals Pie Chart Month counts 2009/04	1 	2009/05	0 	2009/06	0 	2009/07	2659 	2009/08	2279 	2009/09	667 	2009/10	64 	2009/11	70 	2009/12	358 	2010/01	464 	2010/02	974 	2010/03	1969 	2010/04	1377 	2010/05	939 	2010/06	1093 	2010/07	2488 	2010/08	1855 	2010/09	1333 	2010/10	1539 	2010/11	1424 	2010/12	1012 	2011/01	1121 	2011/02	1021 	2011/03	1077 	2011/04	904 	2011/05	1304 	2011/06	1206 	2011/07	1155 	2011/08	1357 	2011/09	1068 	2011/10	846 	2011/11	1227 	2011/12	2555 	2012/01	1885 	2012/02	1164 	2012/03	1081 	2012/04	1053 	2012/05	906 	2012/06	1241 	2012/07	1242 	2012/08	763 	2012/09	2526 	2012/10	2002 	2012/11	1254 	2012/12	672 	2013/01	1389 	2013/02	109

Notification or canvassing?
I appreciate that Tony under Q11 at 07:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC) disclosed that he notified the MOS talk page regarding this RfA, but am I needlessly concerned that this feels like canvassing? While there are strict rules for candidates regarding notification of their RfA, what is the consensus regarding RfA participants? Should lawyers, Floridians, and sports pages be notified next, as they too are discussed in the RfA. As I see it, I don't think any binding decisions will be made here to modify MoS pages.—Bagumba (talk) 08:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, if matters of public policy and procedure concerning those pages are raised here. Tony   (talk)  08:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's inappropriate canvassing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * When editors, unnamed, are referred to by implication as children at a major WP page, I believe they should be advised in a general way that the page is being talked about in these terms. Tony   (talk)  12:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Tony, what do you think about the possibility of replacing the current notification with one using the Pls template? -- Trevj (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In the absence of any comment, I've done that. Tony, please revert if you disagree, per WP:TALKO. -- Trevj (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, I have tried to refrain from commenting on this issue. I must say, however, that I believe that such notice is a violation of the letter and spirit of WP:CANVASSING.  If I were an uninvolved party, I would not hesitate to delete the notice with an edit summary to that effect.  Tony has strongly stated his opposition to this RfA, and this notice appears to be nothing more than an invitation for others to come and read his comments, and to express their !votes.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Perhaps Tony did not think of it in those terms, but he should have.  He is a heavily involved party inviting further comments.  There are no policy, procedural, or substantive issues that are relevant to MOS; this is not an RfC.  If I were to post a similar notice on the talk pages for AfD and several sports Wikiprojects, purportedly on this basis that issues and policies related to AfD and those Wikiprojects were being discussed, would you consider that fair notice of undefined "issues" or canvassing, Trev?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, as the Dirtlawyer says, and any ladies as well who might have ventured into what is apparently an exclusive smoke-filled wiki-room, I would like to point out a discussion at ANI about this very topic, which was initiated by the Dirtlawyer. Unfortunately, as has happened before, the editors who were the subject of Dirtlawyer's grievance did not get notified before the discussion closed. —Neotarf (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As I sit here shaking my head, reading the comment immediately above, I wonder if anyone is accepting it as truthful . . . . What I filed at ANI was not a "grievance"; no other editors were mentioned by name, and no action was sought against any other editor; the ANI was a simple request to remove what is obvious WP:CANVASSING, which everyone should know is not permitted in RfAs, RfCs or anywhere else on Wikipedia when !voting is occurring.  Attempting to characterize my ANI notice as a "grievance" against editors is simply not factual.  *sigh*  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good grief. If people cant see the writing on the wall if buttons are granted here then I dont know what to say. Ceoil (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should keep your contempt to yourself. Canvassing is not acceptable and using Dirtlawyer1's valid complaint to further derail his RfA is silly. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 18:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as no one seems to be prepared to remove the notification, I've done what I think is the next best thing and placed neutral notices at WT:LAW,WT:FLA and WT:SPORTS too. I'm preparing myself to be flamed for doing so, but don't really want to waste time getting into non-productive discussions about this. -- Trevj (talk) 05:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't notify Wikiprojects about RFAs at all period, even if they are neutral, filled with the candidate supporters or opposers because it affects the RFA by bringing unwanted attention. For many people it is considered canvassing. That always been some kind of rule on Wikipedia as far as I remember. We had a candidate last year fail because he was "canvassing" in a IRC leaving message. Secret account 06:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the original message at WT:MOS (06:29, 9 February) wasn't swiftly removed and there's little point in removing it after 2 days. Therefore, I see no harm (in this case, now we already have the original message) in at least trying to balance the effect by posting elsewhere. Obviously, the closing crat is bound to consider the effect(s) of such postings on the !votes, by noting when such !votes were added. FWIW, and with the benefit of hindsight, I think that the comment could have been removed after such removal was apparently endorsed by Anthonyhcole above, indicating evolving consensus (08:56, 9 February). -- Trevj (talk) 08:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "counter-canvassing attempt" is quite poor wording for supposedly "neutral" notification.--Staberinde (talk) 12:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should've used the default template wording. Apologies. -- Trevj (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * not sure who this is, but WikiProjects are now being "notified" by [an IP address which was User:Bagumba accidentally logged off - Coren ]. Frietjes (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, NFL, College Football, College Basketball, and Florida Gators Wikiprojects were notified. Apologies for the (added) drama.—Bagumba (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * To save those reading the additional notifications placed by me the trouble of visiting a discussion now closed, I've removed them. Regarding the violations of generally applicable practices in RFA, if the original WT:MOS posting had been swiftly reverted, then perhaps the ANI thread etc. wouldn't have followed. -- Trevj (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Do ARBATC sanctions apply to this RfA?
SarekOfVulcan, who supports the nomination, has filed an ArbCom enforcement action against one of the editors who opposes the nomination, based on comments made at this RfA. If these accusations are only being made as a systematic campaign of "WP:HARASSMENT" and "WP:WIKIHOUNDING... by one of the admins directly involved in an ongoing dispute", as is claimed, then of course the mention of ARBATC sanctions doesn't belong on the RfA. However, one admin has just stated that "the instruction not to personalize MOS disputes applies to all pages on Wikipedia, and a warning that noncompliance may result in a sanction such as a topic ban". If this RfA page is indeed subject to ARBATC sanctions, then why bring this to the attention of only one editor? Everyone who edits the page should be made aware of the sanctions.

Note: SarekofVulcan has also filed an ANI report here.

—Neotarf (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I was a commentator on that ANI thread in which a number of editors expressed concerns, and when I raised the question of sanctions for SarekOfVulcan, the thread was rather abruptly closed. I view this entire sequence with considerable dismay; at the very least, it does not look good. Jus  da  fax   20:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)