This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LessHeard vanU (talk | contribs) at 00:28, 23 November 2009 (→CLA68 and non-Adminship: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:28, 23 November 2009 by LessHeard vanU (talk | contribs) (→CLA68 and non-Adminship: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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)
CLA68 and non-Adminship
Please, please, please link to CLA68's RfA (found in his statement). In the opposers, note Mantanmoreland (talk · contribs) who was subsequently found to be abusing alternate accounts on precisely those articles he castigates CLA68 over and community indef blocked, and also SlimVirgin who was later sanctioned over her abuse of her admin status in disputes involving CLA68 (as were a couple of the "per Mantonmoreland/SlimVirgin" opposers sanctioned over the years). Further, the attempts to make reference to certain off wiki sites a sanctionable act failed - and it was held that removing links to those sites was not endorsed by WP policy. Finally, CLA68's RfA was succeeding until it was extended by request and a sufficient number of opposers were permitted to change the outcome. Had the RfA concluded when it should, and had not partisan individuals been allowed to participate then, it would have passed.
One of the things ArbCom need do is to ensure that such travesties are not repeated. CLA68 would certainly be minded to ensure that.
This is my perspective and opinion only - and is not endorsed by the candidate. Brickbats to my talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)