Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates/Discussion

2014 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status

• The December 2014 Arbitration Committee Election results have been posted.
• Please offer your feedback on the election process.

This page collects the discussion pages for each of the candidates for the Arbitration Committee elections of December 2014. To discuss the elections in general, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014.

Please endeavor to remain calm and respectful at all times, even when dealing with people you disagree with or candidates you do not support.

Current and potential candidates may find it useful to read an FAQ written for 2010's election by ex-Arbitrator Risker.

Candidates

Courcelles

There's a small typo in your statement (two, not tow), but overall I'm very happy to read it. Glad to see you running again. NW (Talk) 01:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oops, fixed. Thanks! Courcelles 21:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

DGG

• I've had several excellent interactions with this administrator in the past. They have always been very fair in any administrative dealings that I've observed, and I strongly feel that they would have the proper temperament for ArbCom. Guy1890 (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• I have had several non-pleasant non-admin interactions with this particular candidate, and although stating this openly might cause me further grief, I for one do not advocate this candidate being a member of Arbitration Committee for that reason. I believe that the candidate was doing what they believe was best for the article and/or project, at the same time I feel that the candidate did not give the courtesy of that same opinion to those who held different opinions about the articles and projects that were being discussed at those times.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller

• I'm Kurtis, and I strongly approve this message candidate. :) Kurtis ^(talk) 22:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• I think this might be the best candidate to have announced to the time of this writing. His frequent work in some of our most contentious content, including such things as dubious science, pseudoscience, and minority theories regarding early human history, will I think be invaluable in dealing with matters related to those general areas. John Carter (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Not a good sign that you haven't even bothered to answer any of the questions after 3 days. Arbcom is already very slow, your lack of response says to me you'd make it even slower. --Rotten regard 23:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if a late response is worse than no response, but real life commitments made long before I was asked to run, and wanting to work on them all (or virtually all) at once before posting my answers are the reasons. Perhaps I should have simply answered them a few at a time, that would have meant I'd have had answers posted earlier. I can assure everyone that I won't slow down ArbCom! Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• My experiences with this candidate have always been good, even when we've disagreed on content. I believe he will be fair, and will exercise good judgement. Atsme☯^Consult 15:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• I've interacted with Dougweller on a variety of articles and talk pages during my 4+ years as an editor. I have always found him to be thorough, level-headed, and deliberate as an administrator and a fellow editor. He is a trusted source of advice when tensions rise and he provides support for a clear and encouraging environment, especially when it comes to controversial topics, such as those which brush up against the borderlands of science and history. John Shandy` • talk 21:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Dusti

• Dusti has matured tremendously over the past few years, to the extent where I can safely say that I trust his judgement. But is he ready yet to take on the responsibilities of an arbitrator? We'll have to wait and see. Kurtis ^(talk) 14:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

  Thank you Kurtis :) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Hahc21

Candidate has withdrawn from the election

Comment Just one comment, without having researched the candidate's suitability properly: he writes very well. Tony (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Question 15 Thanks for your reply, Hahc21[1]. Unfortunately, I can not support an ArbCom candidate who creates copyright violations and lets them linger (or worse, promotes them as GAs and uses them as evidence of their best work in their RFA attempt) even after the issues have been pointed out and you were clearly aware of them. You now state that "However, I still believed that I was unable to paraphrase the sources, and so I topped working on these articles. Yes, the castle articles were a very unhappy exception, and I was extremely embarrased about it mostly because I felt I was unable to fix it alone.", which not only doesn't match your use of it in your RFA nomination, but also is not the way to deal with copyright violations. If you create an article where you afterwards realise that you are "unable to paraphrase the sources", you should have asked for its deletion yourself. The initial creation may have been nearly two years ago, but the result was here until today. Fram (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC) I respect your position with regards to the election, but I strongly disagree with your assessment that I "create copyright violations and lets them linger." Since this is a two-year old matter (in which several users weighted in and helped, and after which I learned and fixed my mistakes) I don't see why I should go back and discuss it once more. Most of my featured articles came after that embarassing event, and you can feel free to go and check them all. → Call me Hahc21 14:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC) If you had fixed your mistakes, I wouldn't have deleted the article. You did not fix your mistakes. You may not have repeated them in later creations (only six of those, I believe) or edits. I don't expect you to "go back and discuss it once more", I expect you to go back and get it deleted. If this was an RfA, I would now change my !vote to Strong oppose. Fram (talk) 14:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC) I completely forgot about those articles after I stopped working on them. That's the reason why they still stood until today. → Call me Hahc21 15:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC) The copyright concerns were raised on 3 January, but your last edit to the talk page was two days later, to nominate the article for DYK. You then edited the article regularly for a few days. You edited the peer review weeks later[2]. You last edit to the article was in July 2013[3]. Worst of all, after the copyright concerns had been raised on the 3rd, you actually added a long copyvio the next day, [4]. I can't find a shred of evidence that you actually cared about the problems with the article, then or now. So, in three replies, you have switched from "I was extremely embarassed about it" to "I learned and fixed my mistakes" to "I completely forgot about those". Please tell, how would you evaluate an editor presenting this kind of evidence or defense in an ArbCom case? Fram (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC) It was an isolated event, not a pattern of behaviour. I understood the issues and didn't repeat the mistakes after that. I don't think any user under these circumstances would have to find himself in front of ArbCom. If your point is that I am at fault for not asking for deletion or trying to remove the copyvios myself, then you are right and I apologize, but don't try to make this a bigger problem than what it is. I already said that I learned from it and stopped. → Call me Hahc21 16:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC) If you hadn't stopped, you would be at WP:ANI now for a desysop and possible block. As it is, the way you handled this and replied here is sufficient to not trust you as an ArbCom member. Fram (talk) 09:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Incorrect. If I hadn't stopped, I wouldn't have passed RfA in the first place. → Call me Hahc21 11:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Considering that no one noticed this copyvio at the time of your third RfA, I fail to see why my claim is "incorrect" or why you are so sure that more recent copyvios would have been detected. But seeing how little content work you actually still do, it is only logical that the chance of further violations has been reduced considerably. Fram (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC) There is one thing I have learned from this interaction with you, and that is that there is no benefit at all to continue this conversation. Think what you want about my contributions, open a CCI if you so desire. I have nothing to hide. Cheers. → Call me Hahc21 13:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC) All questions When we take the time to ask questions I think it is appropriate for a candidate to answer them. You have ignored mine which is a shame since it related directly to your candidate statement. Leaky Caldron 16:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC) @Leaky caldron: Wow. I completely missed your question. I'll answer it later today. Apologies. → Call me Hahc21 18:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC) Question from Fram Moved to the talk page. Mike V • Talk 10:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Note: when no answer was forthcoming here, I asked Hahc21 about this protection on his talk page in User talk:Hahc21#The 1989 World Tour. He first made up a completely incorrect reason to defend his action, and when I pointed out that reality and his response had very little in common, he removed the move protection but didn't leave an explanation for his change of mind or his earlier statements. The page history, where he deleted an older page to move a newer one on the same subject, has not been restored either. These two situations (my first question, and his reply here and the discussion at the talk page here; and my second question and discussion) have left me with the distinct impression that Hahc21 is not fit to be an ArbCom member at the moment. Fram (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC) After reading this and the Wikipedia:ANI report,[5] I have to strongly oppose Hahc21. These AFDs[6]-[7]-[8] are questionable, they had to be relisted, but Hahc21 deleted them. Since some of them are notable, and the speedy deletions made by Hahc21, I don't think that he is aware of Wikipedia:BEFORE. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC) This is serious. The courteous thing to do would be to withdraw before the close of the election. Ignocrates (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

PhilKnight

Candidate has withdrawn from the election
An editor I'd be glad to have on the Arbitration Committee again. Kurtis (talk) 08:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC) Of course! Bladesmulti (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC) It worries me that PhillKhight have not answered any questions in his candidacy and probably he is not ready about to spend enough time as an Arb. – nafSadh did say 21:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Salvio giuliano

I am currently a little busy in real life and, so, cannot reply to the questions with the appropriate level of thoughtfulness for at least a couple of days. I apologise in advance, but I'll try to get to them as soon as I can. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Salvio - I read the notice on your talk page, and hope your health is improving. Do you feel up to the task of participating on the ARB Com? Atsme☯^Consult 16:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Atsme. Yes, I believe I am up to the task of being an arbitrator. As I've said in my candidate statement, for the past two years I have been one and my health issues have not prevented me from carrying out my responsibilities as a member of the committee. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

"Butthurt"

It seems that the candidate is being "Anti-Diversity baited" on his use of the slang term "butthurt"... Let's look at the etymology of that term of mild rebuke, shall we?

(1) "Know Your Meme" indicates that "The term “butthurt” originates from spanking[1], the act of striking the buttocks of another person, which is often seen as a method of punishing a child." It notes that it first appeared online c. 1998 and was added to Urban Dictionary.com in Dec. 2001; and added to Wiktionary in Aug. 2007. There is no indication of any anti-gay connotation in the origin of the word.

(2) The Online Slang Dictionary added the word "butt-hurt" in Jan. 1999, with a definition currently standing as "offended, upset, or angry, usually by a small slight or a friendly insult." There is no indication of any anti-gay connotation in the origin of the word.

(3) The top ranked response on Urban Dictionary gives a definition of "An inappropriately strong negative emotional response from a perceived personal insult. Characterized by strong feelings of shame. Frequently associated with a cessation of communication and overt hostility towards the 'aggressor.'" The second ranked definition is "Getting your feelings hurt, being offended or getting all bent out of shape because of something petty or stupid."

(4) Wiktionary says that the term means "Overly annoyed or bothered by a perceived insult; needlessly offended" as an adjective and "Annoyance because of a perceived insult." as a noun.

Nowhere outside of a couple crude user-submitted Urban Dictionary definitions is it indicated that the phrase has anything to do with anal sex, which is the fairly clear intimation of the pointed questions asked.

The irony of one being or feigning upset over this particular word seems self-evident. Carrite (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of how you frame it, this word is vulgar in use and when targeted at another user on Wikipedia is deliberately demeaning and uncivil. Rather than focusing on anal sex, I suggest you focus on whether demeaning language is suitable when someone is acting in a significant elected and trusted role such as Arbcom; if re-elected it is clear that Salvio obviously intends to carry on in the same old behaviours. In the UK we have had ministers resigning over alleged use of the word "pleb", not too dissimilar a situation is it? --Fæ (talk) 05:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you had to dredge up an edit I made in 2012 on commons just goes to show how much credence should be attached to your accusation... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The facts speak for themselves as shown in the diffs, there is no "accusation" being made.

As I highlighted, this was an issue this summer, when your fellow Arbcom member expected action against Russavia for exactly the same word. Personally it comes as no surprise that after two years to think about it, you are still vigorously defending your behaviour while damning everyone else in your field of view who thinks they can behave the same way. If you get back on Arbcom then I just don't see the culture on Wikipedia getting better any time soon, just further entrenchment of the same hostile attitudes. Maybe you'll think of a better way of spending your volunteer time, I'm keeping my fingers crossed. --Fæ (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The appearance of bias versus actual bias

I agree that Salvio didn't need to recuse in the recent GGTF case however he should have done so. For clarity I don't think he was actually biased but there was enough evidence that he should (as other arbs did in the case of Eric Corbett rulings to stand aside in relation to Sitush and Carolmooredc). Justice needs not only to be done but to be seen to be done. The issue of being perceived (and thus the Committee being perceived) as biased is serious and IMHO this was a major flaw in judgement by Salvio. If Salvio is re-elected I urge him to read R_v_Sussex_Justices,_ex_p_McCarthy#Judgment and take cognizance of it, not because he needs to but because the committee and the community's trust in that committee require him to--Cailil ^talk 10:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with you that I should have recused; if you examine it, my entire involvement concerning the dispute between Carol Moore and Sitush was limited to a one-line comment I made when discussing an unrelated matter, which was in its entirety "I advise against creating a biography on Carol". That was it. Honestly, I don't see how that can create the appearance of bias and, in my opinion, this entire issue was blown way out of proportion. I still think that there was not even an appearance of bias on my part, which is why I did not recuse. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Salvio let be more precise - you should have (at least) abstained from votes in relation Carol & Sitush. Just as other Arbs did vis a vis votes on Eric. It's not about actually being biased. It's about the whole voting looking completely unbiased. It's not in fact about you but the process as a whole, and it worries me that you never got that (and that you still defend it). Look at WTT's & Beeblebrox's decisions to abstain in those instances. I absolutely agree you weren't in fact biased but I 100% question your choice not in the Sitush / Carolmooredc instances (this does in fact fail the R_v_Sussex_Justices,_ex_p_McCarthy test re: justice being seen to be done). I know this is a finer point but as far as I'm concerned it goes to overall judgement--Cailil ^talk 12:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, I disagree. The interactions between Eric and the two arbitrators who abstained were different in nature from mine with Carol and Sitush. As a matter of fact, I can't remember ever interacting with Carol or making any comments about her, outside of the arbitration case; I actually can't remember ever mentioning her, except in that one-line comment. On the other hand, I have occasionally worked with Sitush in my capacity as a functionary.

In my opinion, this is not a finer point: I believe there was no reason I should have recused. If arbitrators are supposed to recuse even after making a minor comment on a matter, you'll end up pushing arbitrators to retire in an ivory tower, interacting with nobody except in arbitration matters, which I submit would be detrimental to Wikipedia, because you'd be forcing them to lose contact with the community and you'd be depriving the community of their experience and advice. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Except that the one interaction you had was a) very recent and b) (more importantly) about the matter on which the Committee made a finding and help come to a decision to ban one of the parties. Also I work at WP:AE, and used to (until RL became extremely demanding) do so very regularly, so I understand the difference between BS cries of "your involved" from partisan editors, and areas that although I'm not involved I should leave to others' judgement. For example there's a case at AE about the Abortion RFAR - I've never edited in that area however I have heavily edited feminism and therefore despite my factual objectivity I would never be seen to be objective. And if I were an Arb I would have to recuse myself on such matters. This not about Ivory Towers Salvio, it's about the Community's trust in the Committee and protecting that trust.

And for the record I think the Committee did a good job with the GGTF ruling (despite it being controversial for some ppl) so I have no ax to grind. I also don't think any decision was unduly effected by your !Votes (so I'm not lobbying for reopening or any some such). However, if you cannot see the problem let me spell it out: you did not !vote on FoFs or remedies relating to Sitush (except on the 2 about his interaction with Carol) but did on all remedies and FoFs relating to Carol (see [9]).
The issue is that you offered Sitush your opinion (your judgement) on his BLP of Carol, which he created to further his dispute with her (a point of fact you accepted at the RFAR). This is then compounded when the whole matter comes before the committee (just weeks later) and you !vote on motions re:Carol's punishment but on nothing related to Sitush. The GGTF Interactions RFAR will be a case (for better or worse) that impact's WP's image and will be cited re: WP's (and ArbCom's) attitude to women.
All admins are functionaries here but what separates a functionary from an automaton is our judgement and discretion. Again I'm not suggesting impropriety just misjudgment and I'd be very happy if you'd simply undertake to try to avoid such appearances in the future. If the situation was that another Arb in a similar situation made a casting vote in a remedy or FoF with the appearance of injustice then the consequences for the Committee could be significant. And again you can see for yourself that two of your fellow Arbs made the call to abstain in votes re:Eric, not because of bias but because of the perception of bias--Cailil ^talk 15:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Stanistani

Regarding tools

Tools come with election to ArbCom and WMF considers election to the position sufficiently substantial vetting for their purposes. So there is no need for a second RFA upon election, the ArbCom election is itself essentially an election for "tools for a limited period," which you say you shall seek. I believe this to be accurate, someone correct me if I am wrong. Good luck with the election. Carrite (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I hope you are correct. I looked around and could not find much on the issue. If a set of tools come with election to the Committee, I hope they do not include the blocking tools. That's not what I'm here for.→StaniStani 00:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I think they probably would include the tools to block, but speaking for myself the simple fact of having the tools to block does not mean that you are necessarily ever really going to use them. I know I used them only very rarely, and in situations where it struck me that doing so was the only reasonable alternative. John Carter (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Emergency use would be my only exception, and I have a high threshold to pass for "emergency."→StaniStani 22:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Endorsement

I, as an individual, having looked over some of the activity of this individual as the main site administrator on the wikipediocracy site for some time now, and seeing that at least one of our current arbitrators, Worm, has said that he believes this individual is qualified, want to endorse this candidate for ArbCom.

There are other qualified candidates, of course. But most of them are, obviously, primarily qualified because of their activity here. Stanistani (who really might want to consider changing his name to the avaialble Zoloft) is probably the candidate most familiar with the "criticism" of wikipedia and the ArbCom in particular, from many of the editors there, which include not only some sitebanned editors and others who have expressed their discontent with wikipedia but also at least a few regular contributors whom I personally highly regarded as editors here. While much of that experience is probably of no particular use for an arbitrator, it is also I think likely that there have been or could be in the future some reasonable alternative remedies discussed there or suggested by comments there which others who don't watch the site as much might miss.

This individual is probably more likely to think outside the box than a lot of the other candidates, and that would be a definite plus for the committee in devising and implementing some remedies.John Carter (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Despite the relative lack of content creation, I have a very good feeling about Stanistani. He seems sensible and gets straight to the point. John Carter makes an excellent case for him as well.

Technical 13

Gerda Arendt's question

• @Technical 13: has got hold of the wrong end of the stick here. The place he links to is a motion to change an existing remedy. The existing remedy passed 7:3. The motion to change it failed 5:7. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC).
  

(I dared to changed the ping above to try to make it work, and repeat in case that also doesn't work because not signed.) @Technical 13: --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• I appreciate your attempts (which were ultimately successful and I saw it this morning). I am, of course, watching this page (and all other related pages) and saw the malformed ping last night. Thank you, and happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for sleeping over and re-thinking, a good quality that I like. You might correct typos if you have the time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hastuer's question (and it's supressed follow ups)

Voter Guide writers (Elonka—Rschen7754—HJ Mitchell—Go Phightins!—Collect—EllenCT) I wish to draw your attention to a series of exceedingly poor choices by both the Election coordinator (Mike V) and the Candidate.

1. [10] I asked a relatively neutral question regarding the candidate's history and how do they reconcile their history (including events less than 6 months ago) with the demeanor of one who is at the top of the dispute resolution pyramid.
2. [11] The candidate responds and claims that the issues are dealt with above, but my question is how do they reconcile the entirety, so the question wasn't answered.
3. [12] I rephrase the question and indicate why I think it should be answered.
4. [13] Not 20 minutes later, the glorious election coordinator removes the rephrased question citing removing duplicate, unconstructive question.
5. [14] I restore the question specifically citing Not duplicate. Asking because the voters have a right to know what kind of Arbiter they're potentially voting on
6. [15] Less than 10 minutes later the candidate removes the question again citing reremoving duplicate, unconstructive question. Thanks again for stopping by. when clearly the candidate did not pay attention to the message I left when undoing the first removal.
7. Since my rephrasing wasn't accepted, I change tack and incorporate the candidate's removal of the rephrase into the follow up [16]
8. Finally, the Coordinator (less than 15 minutes after I rephrased the question) again removes my question citing removing disruptive question
9. And then the coordinator reads the riot act over me on the talk page.

I do admit that I did have a specific agenda in asking this question and a specific outcome that I wanted to see for this question. I do admit that I became somewhat ill tempered when an administrator who should know better is attempting to supress my right to bring to light certain aspects of Technical 13's character that are (in my view) incompatible with their asserted goal to be an Arbiter. Hasteur (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

With respect Technical 13 my DISCUSSION is in order here. Your removal from this "Discuss the Candidate" page is out of order and has been marked as VANDALISM. Kindly keep your hands OFF this statement. Hasteur (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

With respect, neither of you are impressing me with your behavior. --Rschen7754 04:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur, if you want to "bring to light" things you know about a candidate, that is better placed in a guide or talk page comment than in a question to which you already (apparently think you?) know the answer. Have you considered doing those things instead of trying to force it through in the specific form of a question? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Fluffernutter A guide means you have to review all the candidates, otherwise it becomes an attack piece/advertisment of the candidate if you focus on a few candidates. By attempting to ask the question (and I see that the line was picked up by others) those that read the questions/guides will have a better understanding of the candidate's nature. Hasteur (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Candidate's understanding of copyright and deletion policy

I would suppose this is as good a place as any to bring this up. I considered submitting a question on his understanding of copyvio and deletion but I'm not sure it would have been constructive or well received. Anyhow, in the wake of a run in with Technical I was astounded to learn that, in addition to attempting a speedy delete on Cocaine a few weeks before filing this AfD, he is standing for ArbCom. He also filed this related AN/I report. Normally I wouldn't even follow up but Technical has been on Wikipedia for three and a half years, assembled over 24K edits, the whole cupboard of permissions, and does a lot of work in non-admin closes and with bots. I feel as though he's "slipped through the cracks", so to speak. GraniteSand (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• My understanding of copyvio is that an article that is comprised entirely (well, I suppose 99.5% isn't entirely) of content copied from other sites by an unauthorized bot (which was subsequently blocked and had talk page fully protected) where removing said copyright violations would leave no usable content in the article should be deleted despite whether or not the topic of the article is notable. This leaves it open for another user to recreate the article without the troublesome illegal page history as a good article. Furthermore, a comment by a user that is directed towards another user in an insulting and personally attacking way that distracts from the discussion about the deletion of said article should be redacted or removed in one way or another. The idea is to encourage discussion about the article and not get side tracked trying to throw mud around. I take Jayron32's comment as sound advice, and as such have let the AN/I discussion fizzle out. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 01:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you juxtapose your understanding of copyvio policy, deletion policy, and your SPEEDY and AfD nominations of Cocaine with the result of the AfD? What does it tell you? How does it guide your future actions and inform your understanding of the policies and procedures in question? GraniteSand (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Wbm1058

endorsement

One is on your side in any event. Collect (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Collect: Wow, your highest score! Thanks! – Wbm1058 (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

---