Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Qwyrxian

Qwyrxian's edit stats using X!'s edit counter as of 00:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC):

Username:	Qwyrxian User groups:	reviewer, rollbacker First edit:	Oct 21, 2008 01:00:09 Unique pages edited:	11,088 Average edits per page:	2.32 Live edits:	24,645 Deleted edits:	1,103 Total edits (including deleted):	25,748

Namespace Totals

Article	12471	50.60% Talk	3695	14.99% User	284	1.15% User talk	6573	26.67% Wikipedia	1230	4.99% Wikipedia talk	318	1.29% File	7	0.03% Template	30	0.12% Template talk	19	0.08% Help	2	0.01% Help talk	2	0.01% Category	10	0.04% Category talk	2	0.01% Portal talk	2	0.01% Namespace Totals Pie Chart Month counts 2008/10	1 	2008/11	2 	2008/12	3 	2009/01	0 	2009/02	0 	2009/03	1 	2009/04	10 	2009/05	6 	2009/06	2 	2009/07	0 	2009/08	0 	2009/09	8 	2009/10	6 	2009/11	3 	2009/12	1 	2010/01	1 	2010/02	3 	2010/03	1 	2010/04	3 	2010/05	13 	2010/06	585 	2010/07	1075 	2010/08	3568 	2010/09	2562 	2010/10	2708 	2010/11	1479 	2010/12	774 	2011/01	1636 	2011/02	1889 	2011/03	2221 	2011/04	1804 	2011/05	2081 	2011/06	1236 	2011/07	963

Top edited pages Article

79 - Sea_of_Japan_naming_dispute 76 - Lil_B 53 - Jan_Lokpal_Bill 43 - Hello_Kitty 43 - Kevin_Hart_(poet) 40 - Dog_meat 36 - Value-Added-Tax-free_imports_from_the_Channel_Isla... 36 - List_of_Indian_film_actors 35 - Corruption_in_India 34 - Patna

Talk

172 - Senkaku_Islands 130 - Senkaku_Islands_dispute 87 - Kimchi 66 - Dog_meat 63 - Yoshiyahu_Yosef_Pinto 53 - Sea_of_Japan_naming_dispute 48 - List_of_common_misconceptions 43 - Kevin_Hart_(poet) 37 - Muhammad 34 - Tamil_Kshatriya

User

65 - Qwyrxian/SI_dispute_reorg 29 - Qwyrxian 25 - Qwyrxian/Hart 16 - Qwyrxian/huggle.css 14 - Anna_Frodesiak/Silver_sandbox 14 - Anna_Frodesiak/Black_sandbox 11 - Qwyrxian/Sandbox 9 - Qwyrxian/Pinto_draft 8 - Anna_Frodesiak/Blue_sandbox 4 - Tashap12/Sandbox

User talk

583 - Qwyrxian 56 - Maheshkumaryadav 28 - Bobthefish2 27 - Sitush 27 - Anna_Frodesiak 24 - Ghazal_Omid 18 - Jimbo_Wales 14 - Neutralhomer 14 - Phoenix7777 13 - Moonriddengirl

Wikipedia

231 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism 139 - Huggle/Whitelist 100 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents 74 - Requests_for_page_protection 46 - Village_pump_(policy) 24 - Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard 23 - Village_pump_(idea_lab) 22 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring 18 - Village_pump_(proposals) 15 - Reliable_sources/Noticeboard

Wikipedia talk

39 - Requests_for_mediation/Senkaku_Islands 24 - Requests_for_mediation/Senkaku_Islands/Archive 23 - No_original_research 17 - What_Wikipedia_is_not 15 - Biographies_of_living_persons 12 - Requests_for_comment/Tenmei 11 - Naming_conventions_(Korean)/Disputed_names 10 - Naming_conventions_(geographic_names) 8 - WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/Courses/Sp... 7 - WikiProject_Television_Stations

File

2 - Gando1.jpg 2 - Living_in_Hell_Cover.jpg 1 - Dears_vol_1_cover.jpg 1 - CharlesBrand.jpg 1 - USCandSNA.jpg

Template

6 - Corruption_in_India 2 - Aviation_accidents_and_incidents_in_2010 1 - Kimchi 1 - Muhammad 1 - Cruzeiro_Esporte_Clube_squad 1 - Infobox_Hindu_leader 1 - Woolworth 1 - Location_map_Western_Sahara 1 - Macedonian_language 1 - Philadelphia_Eagles_roster

Template talk

2 - Edit_semi-protected/doc 2 - Infobox_The_Apprentice_candidates 2 - New_York_Yankees_roster 1 - Help_me 1 - Infobox_Star_Wars_character 1 - Race 1 - Sarah_Palin 1 - Infobox_radio_show 1 - Muhammad 1 - Zodiac_sign

Help

2 - Redirect

Help talk

1 - Disambiguation 1 - Diff

Category

3 - China_–_Hong_Kong_border_crossings 1 - South_African_choirs 1 - Villages_in_Faizabad_district 1 - Kuril_Islands 1 - Iraqi_football_biography_stubs 1 - China–Macau_border_crossings 1 - Hindu_terrorism 1 - Islamic_terrorism

Category talk

2 - Goetic_demons

Portal talk

1 - Contents/Outlines/Intro 1 - Science/Intro

List of editors canvassed by Diligent007

 * What is the intent for the posting of this list? My76Strat (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a good place for a central location of the canvassing. That's a factor the closing admin will have to take into account. Dayewalker (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Diligent tried to votestack (see Canvassing) by canvassing these editors (you among them), whom he thought might share his outlook on this RfA. This isn't allowed and did cause some disruption. Dianna posted the list. This kind of canvassing is daunting to deal with, because some of these editors likely became aware of the RfA only through canvassing, which isn't allowed: Although Diligent thought (mistakenly or not) they would tend to have the same PoV as him on the topic, many editors are wary of doing anything to stop good faith input. It doesn't seem as though this canvassing will sway the outcome. If it did, such a list might be helpful to any bureaucrat who closes the RfA, to weigh the canvassing. Nobody on this list should think they're being besmirched or that anyone thinks they broke any policy and so on. I wouldn't have posted this list and perhaps it should be taken down. The canvassing did stir up something of a mess. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * After a second ec, you only get the brief reply, I see it as an attempt to cast aspersion, The drama is a disguising saga and this is just an example of feeding its continuation. And it insults integrity on several fronts to suggest this as a benign attempt at keeping the crats informed. I see the situation with Diligent as a good example of being, shall I say; overly-Diligent. My76Strat (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And what happened to the first re to my question, which was the primary impetus of my reply. My76Strat (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like it got lost in the edit conflicts (I never saw it). I found it and have put it back. As I said, perhaps this list should be taken down, but the canvassing has brought up meaningful worries, as canvassing will. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't take it down, it is really a simple statement of fact. I only asked for the motive for compiling it here. My76Strat (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if posting the list here hurt your feelings, My76Strat. It was not my intent that you should feel insulted because your name is on the list. You cannot stop people from posting things on your talk page, so I am quite sure no one will think any less of you because you were canvassed. I know I don't. Posting the list seemed a simple way to clarify which users were canvassed. I will take it down, and any closing bureaucrat can refer to it in the page history if they want to. --Diannaa (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the gesture, and accept your humility in that reply. To be honest I am thrilled that you simply understand my position, I am actually saddened myself, to the degree I am said to have saddened you, because I really didn't intend in my own regards to generate emotion beyond reason. For the most part, everything is reasonable; to the better end, empathetic reason is significantly more stringent. Best, My76Strat (talk) 02:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a good example of how an extremely disruptive editor can sow confusion, discord, and hurt feelings among good faith editors—probably no matter what course of action was taken. I think that taking the list down is the right thing, but perhaps each of those oppose votes that were canvassed should have a comment for the closing bureaucrat. First Light (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Even with those canvassed votes, this RfA is sitting at 90% with 7 hours to go, so I doubt that the efforts to sabotage this RfA are going to be even close to successful. --  At am a  頭 17:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, First Light, Diannaa's list included me but please be aware my "Oppose" vote (Oppose #5) was made before Diligent007's one, and couple days before he left a message in my talk page even it is counted as canvas. Please correct your comment below my Oppose vote. When I made my vote, I had no idea who Diligent007 was and what happened between D and Q, and now I still have no interesting in it. Q has 100% chance to pass this vote so give those wikipedians making Oppose vote AGF as possible as you can. --Lvhis (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Lvhis is right - I've apologized and struck my comment under his "Oppose'. First Light (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Since there have been some questions as to whether the editors chosen were actually votestacking, let me explain (since it's pretty easy for me as the involved user to see the pattern). I haven't looked at every single one on this list, but from the 8 or nine or so that I scanned, these editors appear to share only one thing in common: they all disagreed with me on my talk page regarding some action I or they took on Wikipedia. Some of the interactions were pleasant, some less so. Some of those editors haven't even edited in over six months. Some were IPs who can't even !vote here. One is an editor who last edited in April with only 2 edits to mainspace and 7 more to some talk pages.T The edits are on a wide variety of topics, and a wide variety of problems. Obviously I'm biased, but I can't see any way to read Diligent007's choice of editors as anything less than an attempt at votestacking. In some cases, like with My76strat and Rklawton, Diligent misread the nature of the conversation, seeing discord where there was none, but the selection criteria seems pretty clear to me.Qwyrxian (talk) 04:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Man, I wish I had seen you posting this before I spent an hour wiki-stalking your Wikistalker. Makes sense, though. Dayewalker (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He knew what he was doing, votestacking (though he didn't know it was called that here). He doesn't seem to have been aware it was against policy and seems to have been truly taken aback when told as much. Likewise the sockpuppetry, I think he may not have understood it has been tried daily for years and most experienced editors see through it straight off. It's what happens when new editors have a notion they understand how the site should work and hew to their own outlooks, without bothering to look into the sundry policies, however flawed or helpful they may be. As someone put it, WP:BOOMERANG. This isn't the first RfA disrupted over content disputes and it won't be the last. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions of Canvassing
To elaborate on the discussion topic on the RfA page, if you'll use the Interset Contribs tool, you can see where the editors canvassed crossed paths with the nom. For example, this link Shows where the nom and Sennen goroshi intersected. These two edits  show the conflict.

Taking a random sample of the canvassed editors, Gurjeshwar has reverted Q twice  recently.

IP only has five edits, and four of them involved Q.

IP clashed with Q on adding spam links to pygmy goat, as seen here.

Tulip32 was involved with Q, in regards to copyvio images on her user and sandbox page. 

Fragma08 was in a conflict with Q on Deobandi.

Emetvetzedek was a POV warrior who clashed with Q.

Danydanydany had a section on their talk page left by Q about AFD tags.

S1312 had left messages on Q's page correcting them about a WikiProject.

660gd4qo appears to have been in conflict with Q over the Sea of Japan naming dispute.

Just a few samples, I'm willing to bet if you check the crossover edits between Q and the canvassed editors, everyone of them had some contact with him in the past. Whether that was enough to sway their ongoing opinion of him or not, it's canvassing to seek them out specifically. Dayewalker (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am not convinced. In many ways, comments from people with prior experience with the nominee should be encouraged rather than shunned. The act of hand-picking editors who had prior interaction with the nominee does not intrinsically constitute "vote-stacking". If there is reason to believe that prior interaction with (or increased knowledge of) the nominee is a factor that can decrease the likelihood of the nominee to be accepted, then this should be viewed as a serious problem because that would imply that people who know the nominee generally do not like him.
 * What you need to make your case convincing is to show that all of them harbour obvious animosity/distaste against the nominee. Just from scanning through his contribution history, I can say I know some of the invitees (i.e. Lvhis and STSC) myself through interactions in a particular article and I daresay they are not among the top candidates that I would expect to oppose the nominee's candidacy. At the same time, I also saw several who appeared far more likely to oppose the nominee not included among those invited (i.e. Tenmei and Phoenix7777, whom against my expectations, supported the nominee). If Diligent007 really did intend to canvass with such a roster of editors, I'd say he's missing some very obvious choices. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In response to the (accepted) nominee's description of Diligent007's invitees, I'd say it'd be more convincing to show that the majority of invitees are likely to harbour ill-feelings to him. As he stated himself, "some of the interactions were pleasant, some less so". That in itself, can be quite damaging to the concept that these people were as likely opponents to his nomination. The comment "My76strat and Rklawton, Diligent misread the nature of the conversation, seeing discord where there was none" sounded like a guess on the psychology of Diligent007 rather than an actual fact. Is there any way he can show that My76strat and Rklawton were invited due to a belief that they harbour ill-feelings to the nominee? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Bob, in the section above, you can see Q explain that it certainly appears D7 went through his talk page and sent messages to people who had interacted with him there. D7 chose those editors because he thought they'd "harbour obvious animosity/distaste against the nominee" as you ask above. I think you're looking at this and saying that because all canvassed editors did not oppose the nom, it wasn't canvassing.


 * Just because D7 was canvassing doesn't mean he had a 100% success rate. He's not exactly a criminal mastermind. Dayewalker (talk) 05:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I went for coffee and you already replied before I returned. I already addressed Q's post.
 * As for your speculation of my skepticism, it is completely off the mark. In fact, I had very clearly indicated why I am uncomfortable with this. Please read previous posts.
 * I'd also refrain from making too much psycho-analysis of Diligent007. In absence of concrete evidence, it's all speculation. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No offense intended, Bob. I'm just trying to answer you when you ask for more proof that some of the editors were canvassed because they were "likely to harbour ill-feelings to him." I'm just saying that D7 went through Q's page and tried to send notifications to everyone he thought might have a previous grudge against Q. You don't have to prove that every single editor had a serious grudge, or that they all would vote against the nom. D7 went through and found editors he thought would oppose. That's canvassing. Whether they voted oppose (or even if you and I think there were other, better candidates to canvass), that was still the obvious intent of D7. Dayewalker (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you prove that he actually intended to send notifications to everyone he thought might have a previous grudge against Q. In absence of evidence that unambiguously indicates this intention, this is all speculation. With enough imagination, one can invent any number of intricate hypothetical conspiracies from innocent obserations. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Bob, this isn't a court of law. We can't put D7 on the stand and cross-examine him. All we can do is look at his actions. Did he bear a grudge against Q? Did he specifically go to Q's page and seek out people he thought would be more likely to vote "oppose" based on their interactions with Q, and ask them to vote on the RfA? While we can't say definitely, the answer to both of those questions is "yeah, it certainly seems so." That's canvassing, as confirmed by numerous other editors and admins. Dayewalker (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. You and cohorts conjured up a hypothesis of his motivations, which you don't have evidence to prove and are, in fact, not entirely sure about. However, you consider it is a good enough justification for accusing people of breaking rules because this place is not a court of law. I wonder how others would see this... --Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Bob, I don't know what to tell you. I don't have cohorts. I can't even afford underlings. Dayewalker (talk) 08:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to take this case anywhere else you'd like for further explanation, but the ANI filed on this one was crystal clear in terms of editors agreeing it was canvassing. I've done everything I can to try and help explain here, I'll bow out now. Perhaps some other editor can help. Dayewalker (talk) 08:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not see why you need to get all defensive. The cohorts I am referring to are simply the ones who accused the subject of canvassing. Maybe "friends" is a better word?
 * As for the matter, I think I've been pretty reasonable with the questions I asked. This whole thing started out as a simple curiosity on how you and cohorts managed to justify the claim, but it is now becoming obvious that it is, in fact, not properly justified. Since starting an ANI on admins is a nasty business, I will give it a pass. If you don't feel like providing a convincing justification, then you are welcomed to exit this conversation and let the matter die on its own. While it is not a satisfactory conclusion, there's little else I can do. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 09:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Diannaa, 1) I asked what specific part of WP:CANVASS Diligent was decided to have violated. I don't think you answered.  Did you mean to imply Vote-stacking as answer?  2) By writing "... which way the user intended the canvassed persons to vote", I don't know what "intended the persons to vote" means.  (Do you mean "... which way the user guessed the canvassed persons to vote"?  If so, then that is a guess. (Not "knowledge" as per Vote-stacking in WP:CANVASS.) 3) You wrote: "at User talk:Qwyrxian, where Diligent expresses that he expects the canvassing to result in a deluge of Oppose votes." That is not how I interpreted Diligent's message to Qwyrxian.  IMO your interpretation is arbitrary and probably even not correct (not Diligent's message).  Here is what Diligent wrote: "You can't forbid me from informing others about this process just so that you can attempt to protect the exhibition of inevitable opposition against your nomination."  Here is how I interpreted his message to mean: "You can't forbid me from informing others about this process just so that you can attempt to protect an exhibition of inevitable opposition against your nomination, if that is what you think you are doing."  I think my interpretation is reasonable, and I expect even the correct one (what he truely meant).  4) The five Admins who agree with you, I can hardly comment on that, can I?  (I asked here what specifically justified the charge of canvassing against Diligent.  You responded.  I'm responding to what you responded with.  [To me so far, the justifications offered seem thin.])  Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've raised similar concerns on how Dianna interpreted the two diffs she cited. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Bob, given that this was the first canvassing edit that D7 made, even though he subsequently used or edited to something more neutral in other cases, when he became aware that the heat was on, I think even the most congenial person would conclude that his intention was not friendly. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia almost never operates on certainty. When a new editor goes to 10 different pages and changes the birth day of each person, it is entirely possible that they have some sort of old reference book that they think might be correct. So we revert them, then warn them.  If they keep making such changes, ultimately, we block them to prevent disruption.  In this case, we (first, I) told Diligent that what he was doing violates WP:CANVAS.  He not only persisted, but expanded those efforts. Furthermore, claiming that there is any possibility that these people were chosen "neutrality" is, to put it bluntly, patently ridiculous. Hundreds of people have commented on my talk page.  Why was every single person that Diligent canvassed one that had disagreed with me, in many cases, quite strongly?  Why would xe think that there was any value in notifying someone who hasn't edited Wikipedia in 6 months? Why would xe notify someone who I stopped from blatantly spamming the encyclopedia?  How can you possibly hold that Diligent was simply picking random people that had interacted with me, when none of the people he picked had had clear, positive interactions?  That's like telling everyone in WP:Wikiproject Atheism that there's an AfD up on a Hindu religious figure, and then claiming you were just picking people who might be interested in the subject.  Obviously, I'm biased here, but I have to agree with Elen--there is no reasonable way to believe that these people were chosen simply because they had interacted with me, not because the interactions appeared negative and thus Diligent hoped they would oppose my nomination.  Ultimately, though, even though you don't want to raise this at ANI, I don't see any other choice--if we can't persuade you here, then either you have to try ANI, or you have to just walk away assuming that there is in fact a secret cabal of admins (and non-admins, actually) who all conspired to silence dissent and make sure I would pass the RfA.  Qwyrxian (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I didn't say anything about a secret cabal of admins. Your RfA (which I supported) was guaranteed to pass, so I was more thinking about the concept of opportunistic trigger-happiness than vote-stacking. I simply asked questions about things where the justification did not appear to be particularly strong. If you've paid attention to my posting, then it isn't difficult to see that my points were all reactionary. Dayewalker simply said these people interacted with you and I replied based on that. If it is, in fact, shown that all of these people had substantial disagreements with you, then that's fine but that's also not something he made claims of earlier. But since Diligent007 is now (and was) unable to defend his choice of candidates, what really have is a lot of one-sided speculation.
 * Anyway, I have no interest in pursuing this matter beyond this page. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)