User talk:MBisanz/Qs
Do we even need to ask for WJBscribe's case? bibliomaniac15 02:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well if someone said "no", it would strongly influence my !vote in a specific direction very quickly. MBisanz talk 02:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
@MBisanz; Bibliomaniac15: Lol - I just saw this ;-) ... WJBscribe (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Extension reasons
[edit]Hi MBisanz, I've got a couple concerns regarding the extension reasons in the eighth question for bureaucrats. I can't speak for the rest, but I can say that sockpuppetry/proxying may have been the claim by another user, but it was not why I extended the RfA. I extended it in order to give the community time to consider the information which had not been discussed during the regular time of the RfA. The claims made could well have been considered to be bogus. Also the way you have it written it doesn't even explain what the "sockpuppetry/proxying" means, whether it was the reason for extension or not. In some cases like "further consensus needed by Cecropia:" that's a little clearer, but in those like "sockpuppetry by Raul654:", "irregularities by Cecropia:", etc, it is not, in fact it almost makes it sound like crimes by those users. The more important part though is it is probably better not to write what the presumed reason for the extension was, just state who extended it. It's still the same question and the responder has to then research why the RfA was extended. Thanks - Taxman Talk 13:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Another question
[edit]I noticed this page while looking at some old discussions in the BCrat talk page, when Luigi30 was promoted, I also had an RFA that wasn't promoted at the same time, with the same percentage wise and so forth Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Aranda56_3. It was mentioned during the Luigi30 controversy, and so forth. I was to see this RFA grouped with the LuigiRFA question if possible. While I was later promoted, I'm still curious of course. Thanks Secret account 17:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
This RFA was successful at 73%, you might want to include it. Majorly talk 15:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)