Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Babajobu

message: :AE: I don't think you should complain about anyone "going around trying to change other peoples votes", since you contacted a large number of those voting oppose on your RfA, demanding explanations and trying to make them change their votes. Also I dont think you should ever again compain about anyone that try to gather opposition against your possible RfA's in the future. -- Karl Meier 20:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't ask them to change their votes at all. I clarified some of the reasons for why people were so harshly making attacks against me and I had the right to do it if it was my rfa. You and certain others on the other hand went around asking many different editors I have had a dispute with and some I didn't know, including vandals, to bring attention to my Rfa, so that they could oppose. That was unfair and unlike you, I only told BYT to check it out without any other comment. However, perhaps these type of invitations by you made influenced me?  --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 21:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this matter needs further talk. This is Baba's rfa and I don't want to fill his talk page or RFa with unrelated comments. Btw, you agreed to move discussion here. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 21:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  For what it's worth, all I did was argue to others why I thought AE's RfA should be opposed. This is standard practice in RfAs. I don't think I ever actually asked anyone to change their vote. Regards, Babajobu 21:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not standard when it's not your own Rfa. And saying "I'm blown away that you are supporting AE for adminship"  and then trying to secretly convince a user who supported to oppose on their talk page is pretty close if not dead on. Look, I hadn't even met you before, and by saying this you created a bad first impression. Even if you had just opposed and then left it would by okay but this was just wrong. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 22:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it is standard to argue the merits of a candidate in an RfA. You have done the same on my RfA. This is perfectly normal. And it is also standard to participate in an RfA for candidates you do not personally know. I've already received both Support and Oppose votes from people I've never encountered before. They make up their mind by examining my past edits. Again, all perfectly standard. Babajobu 22:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but you should argue the merits on the talk page of the Rfa; not behind the nominee's back after someone has just voted support! Again I had never even met you before and I have no idea why you would do such a thing. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 22:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, our having met or not met is immaterial. Wikipedia is not a social club. I had access to your edit history, just as you have access to mine. I don't know whether it is inappropriate to make a comment on someone's talk page regarding an RfA. I guess I'll have to consider that further. At the time it didn't strike me as particularly unusual. Babajobu 22:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, how about you find an editor who you've never had a dispute with before trying to convince someone who just supported to switch their vote to oppose? That was the feeling then. Anyways, I stand by my stance that it is not a quality of an admin I am looking for. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 22:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I lost track of the antecedents to some of the pronouns in that comment, but regardless, fair enough. Babajobu 22:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to see an understanding. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 22:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unrelated

message: Guys, I'm moving the commentary here. I hope that's okay. If anyone strongly objects, go ahead and move it back. Thanks. Babajobu 14:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on AEs vote