| Revision as of 18:22, 24 November 2009 editFranamax (talk | contribs)18,113 edits →Edit Analysis: chg hdg lvl← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:33, 24 November 2009 edit undoLessHeard vanU (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users33,613 edits resubmit opinion piece - exampled and cited, with misrepresentations and conscious inaccuracies removedNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| A detailed analysis of this candidate's edits in article, user and project space can be found at ]. ] (]) 06:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC) | A detailed analysis of this candidate's edits in article, user and project space can be found at ]. ] (]) 06:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == CLA68 and non-Adminship == | |||
| Please, please, please link to CLA68's ]. In the opposers, note {{vandal|Mantanmoreland}} who was subsequently found to be abusing alternate accounts on precisely those articles he castigates CLA68 over and , and also {{User|SlimVirgin}} who was subsequently a named party to ] (which resulted in SV and CLA68 being admonished, and the original proposer desysopped). Further, the attempts to make reference to certain off wiki sites a ] ] - and ] - but were nevertheless used to remove comments during the RfA extension, disabling the rebuttal of many allegations made by opposers (of which, any ones that are not unproven were found incorrect). It should be noted that many of the opposers also participated on other RfA's of that period, often opposing on much the same basis, some of which ] and some of which ]. Finally, CLA68's RfA was succeeding until it was and a sufficient number of opposers were (24 hour period - the extension - before closed as failed. See the tally at top of both examples). Had the RfA concluded when it should, and had not partisan individuals been allowed to participate then, .<br> | |||
| In response to the rationale that by not being granted sysop flags, or by further enquiring why no further attempt was made, I would respond that perhaps such an experience might influence a recipient in not exposing themselves to such an ordeal again. ( has never stood for adminship again, although he continues to contribute.) It might, however, make someone more inclined to take up a role where policy is applied fairly and in keeping with existing policy, and to ensure that procedure is followed to allow all viewpoints to be considered.<br> | |||
| This is my perspective and opinion only - and is not endorsed (as far as I am aware - certainly not at the time of writing) by the candidate. Brickbats to my talkpage. The only praise I would seek is a support of the candidate. ] (]) 22:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:33, 24 November 2009
Cla68
Just stopped by to express how pleased I am that you're running. You are a man of formidable intellect and honorable character, Cla68. And you don't know how close to the truth you really are...bonne chance et Banzi!;)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Edit Analysis
A detailed analysis of this candidate's edits in article, user and project space can be found at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/Cla68. Franamax (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
CLA68 and non-Adminship
Please, please, please link to CLA68's Request for Adminship. In the opposers, note Mantanmoreland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was subsequently found to be abusing alternate accounts on precisely those articles he castigates CLA68 over and consequently community indef blocked, and also SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) who was subsequently a named party to an Arbitration request against CLA68 (which resulted in SV and CLA68 being admonished, and the original proposer desysopped). Further, the attempts to make reference to certain off wiki sites a sanctionable act failed - and it was further later held that removing links to those sites was not endorsed by existing WP policy - but were nevertheless used to remove comments during the RfA extension, disabling the rebuttal of many allegations made by opposers (of which, any ones that are not unproven were found incorrect). It should be noted that many of the opposers also participated on other RfA's of that period, often opposing on much the same basis, some of which failed and some of which did not. Finally, CLA68's RfA was succeeding until it was extended by request and a sufficient number of opposers were permitted to change the outcome (24 hour period - the extension - before closed as failed. See the tally at top of both examples). Had the RfA concluded when it should, and had not partisan individuals been allowed to participate then, it would have passed.
In response to the rationale that by not being granted sysop flags, or by further enquiring why no further attempt was made, I would respond that perhaps such an experience might influence a recipient in not exposing themselves to such an ordeal again. (Gracenotes has never stood for adminship again, although he continues to contribute.) It might, however, make someone more inclined to take up a role where policy is applied fairly and in keeping with existing policy, and to ensure that procedure is followed to allow all viewpoints to be considered.
This is my perspective and opinion only - and is not endorsed (as far as I am aware - certainly not at the time of writing) by the candidate. Brickbats to my talkpage. The only praise I would seek is a support of the candidate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)