Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Piotrus 2

Sock involvement
Oh, great, now we are getting "me too" supports from accounts like (12 prior edits, obviously following some banned troll's POV agenda) and  (11 prior edits) popping up out of nowhere. As if this RFA wasn't already messy enough. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I expect that they are his students who he has set wiki assignments in RL. They are all over his user page.  Giano   12:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about that too, but I don't think their editing profile is typical of students on assignments. Students would normally be focussed on one particular article. These guys are focussed on POV battles (Sandstunk) and on project-space stuff such as nominating other people's articles at AfD (Squid41913). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I expect you are right. The only thing that's certain is that it all is deeply suspicious.  Giano   13:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:SPI is perhaps the next step? GiantSnowman 13:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Both accounts are suspicious, neither of them is my students. SPI would be fine, but with whom? I for one don't recognize any pattern in their editing, through ask Vrecumba, the first account posted on his talk page, he may have a clue. But, a good point. If any of my students vote, presumably in support (they shouldn't, but weirder things happened), would be acceptable for me to revert their edit? They wouldn't have the faintest clue what RfA really is, but students being students, some may try to carry favor with an instructor. Asking them to self-revet would be not efficient, because I am pretty sure they would get lost in this page and wouldn't know how to revert their edit. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Sandstunk and Squid41913 are ❌ to each other. Squid41913 appears to be playing some kind of game, as he's also registered BBFan13 and has been making strange edits while logged out. However, I have no idea who either of them are. I'll see if I can find out, but I'm doubtful that I will succeed. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Sandstunk" sounds a lot like "Sandstein" to me. If there were a connection in edits, we'd have a case of impersonation here, I think. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if they are impersonating, but looking at their edits at Moldova raises CIR concerns. They want to "delete" the Moldovan language, via the talk page, because they've never heard of it.  And they are rude.  I have many Moldovan friends who wouldn't like that.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 04:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been watching the recent edits there. Thanks to the Soviet era, many Moldovans still genuinely are surprised to find our Romanians know "their language" so I expect the horse of a different color will be around for a long time. Anonimu has been a vociferous proponent of "NOT" Romanian, no Soviet occupations of Romania, etc. around the former Principality (half in Romania, half as Bessarabia after Russian 19th century conquest=current Moldova), so those who believe otherwise sometimes lose their cool. But conversations for other pages. (!) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Questions
I have two questions:
 * 1) Would this be considered WP:CANVASSing?
 * 2) Is it proper procedure to ask somebody on his talk page how he would vote in a pending RfA, and then cite the hypothetical vote during the discussion here to bolster his argument (case "Deb", referred to at Basalisk's oppose)? Kraxler (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we often throw the word "canvassing" around too loosely instead of using it only when it is obvious someone is trying to manipulate voting. In your examples, 1 is clearly fine since they were previously talking about his co-noming the RfA.  As for 2, he is asking someone's opinion he had previously had a disagreement with and might be creating a new oppose vote, so I don't really see that as canvassing.  I do think it showed terrible judgement to do so during your own RfA, although a candidate shouldn't be under a gag order during hell week. I wouldn't normally entertain the idea of sanctioning someone for shooting themselves in the foot.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 04:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the answer, Dennis. I didn't have any "sanctioning" in mind, I was just curious... Kraxler (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Lessons
I've rarely seen a better poster child for RfA reform than this rfa. The reform I would support, as I have supported before, is a clerk empowered to remove comments and defuse hostility. there's a fairly wide tolerance for matters at RfA, and we have a tradition of tolerance for certain editors, but the attack on the candidate I've seen here is one of the most personally disgusting things I've ever witnessed on WP.  DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The candidate explicitly asked for feedback and advice, and he got it. Besides, I'm against censorship, and what you propose is a censor sitting there and deciding what is appropriate and what not. As far as I can see the debate at this RfA has not been uncivil; and facts are facts, opinions are opinions, "free speech" etc. Kraxler (talk) 01:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)