Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Alison

message: Alison's edit stats using "wannabe Kate" tool as of 19:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

message: Strangely, i've opposed and my opposition was removed. Can someone please expain?  J O  R D A N [talk ] 12:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You opposed before the Rfa had started so it was removed, she must have accepted the nom before anyone can comment Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 13:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What Ryan said. Here's where an admin deleted it. I'd put it back in myself but daren't as that would not be appropriate :) Suggest you go ahead and try again now since it's up and running. - Alison☺ 20:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've decided to be bold and re-added J O  R D A N's oppose vote. Will also note this on the user's talk page. -- MarcoTolo 00:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They should also be asked why they oppose. Ryan and I are questioning the user's decision. It's not because we're biased; it's because we're not sure about the answer this user gave. Acalamari 02:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure there was a need for both noms to ask the same question- which looks a bit like ganging up. Ryan asked the question perfectly clearly, I don't think it needed a seconder... WjBscribe 05:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with WJB. Opposers don't have to explain themselves anymore than supporters do. Of course, it helps the candidate look for potential areas to improve if opposers explain their rationale but they don't have to and shouldn't be interrogated about it. Sarah 10:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with sarah and WJB, I simply asked the question because I felt it was a misunderstanding, would people think it more appropriate to remove it? Everyone is entitled to there opinion whether others agree or not Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 10:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was fine to ask the person once and I don't think you should remove your question. Acalamari said above "They should also be asked why they oppose," which is what concerned me...you and he had already asked the question and I didn't think it was necessary or appropriate to continue asking them to clarify their position or to encourage other people to do so. Once was fine, but more than that and it starts to look like ganging up and interrogation, IMO. Cheers, Sarah 11:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it now after reviewing this discussion. Acalamari 15:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  User:JCraw has now clarified his position on my talk page here. Mystery solved. Apparently, he had misinterpreted the RFA as something else - Alison☺ 17:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why am i disallowed to oppose? 

message: Hi all. Unfortunately, User:Manopingo (now closed) informs me that he's the anon that made the somewhat negative comment which I replied to in the RFA . In light of the fact that the guy's been trolling my RFA under two names, that his 'manopingo' account is now closed and that I have now just become aware of it, I request that his support vote be reviewed in the interests of fairness and lack of ambiguity. Transparency, folks - Alison☺ 19:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manopingo