Talk:Marek Židlický

message: I'm utterly flummoxed by the formatting the templates have created. Anyone bright enough to fix it for me will earn my gratitude. Apologies for the ham-fistedness. If you'd like some help fixing double redirects etc, I'll be back in a few days. --Dweller (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: (jumping in here to help)… No problem. Yeah, this version wasn’t working out. The </div> needed to be moved to below my autosignature, is all. Greg L (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

text: No kidding. You know what all that was about? That table posted by Who Are You in his 22:06, Oct. 26 post didn’t have a |} at the end of it. (Phew). I think our div-templates could use a little bit more error handling capability. Greg L (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page 

message: Since canvassing was used in the vote above, and the canvasser also personally approached a person of their choice to close the RM - resulting in a fairly controversial decision - should the move be reconsidered? I wouldn't want anybody to get the impression that a small but noisy minority is colluding to game the system. bobrayner (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would reverse the move and reopen the discussion personally since it was a clearly controversial close and there was canvassing and a hand picked closer. (not that the closer was necessarily biased) -DJSasso (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Goodness, there have been plenty of times I've seen biased closers. This guy is a good guy who at least thought about things. Too often it gets closed becasue of a simple head count which is really wrong. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: He was a user that has in the past supported the nominators position from what I can see in other edits. Doesn't mean he necessarily was biased in his closing, but a hand picked closer by someone who was canvassing is not a good way to go about things. The closer specifically asks the opposers to question his decision. So in light of this it should probably be reopened or started over with a new one whatever is deemed the best way to go about it. -DJSasso (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The admin could have recused...he wasn't forced. You know how many times I've seen the diacritic discussions been placed in places like Swedish wiki project pages where everyone comes over suddenly and votes one particular way. Big canvassing. I've seen admins make decisions on this subject in favor of diacritics, only to see them voting the next go around in favor of the same thing. Obvious bias. But I didn't go back and argue that the page they ruled on should be put up to new poll. If you did that to every wiki article under the same circumstances it wouldn't surprise me to have 50% under scrutiny for bias. This one is done already and it's time to move on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This was more the opportunity to give the closer the choice to make the call before taking it to review or to open a new one without him. It was simply a courtesy. As you said he could have recused, and he did not, thus the issue. -DJSasso (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no real issue. I see someone unhappy that things didn't go their way so that he accuses an admin of bias towards a particular editor. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you think that....you were on the side who "got their way". Canvassing rules were broken here and it appears there could have been a bias. As such the proper thing is to reopen or redo. In no way should the canvasser have been hand picking the closer. That is a blatant bad move, if you are unable to see that then there are bigger issues here. -DJSasso (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Would it be worth the hassle? I don't know. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In a result that was this close and most likely a no-consensus situation. Yes it would be. -DJSasso (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canvassing