Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Doniago

General comments

I just want to say that I do NOT consider Doniago's recent actions to be canvassing. They were of a limited scope and hid dis not urge anyone to vote in the Rfa. He simply said his life was getting more interesting. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- How stupid do you think we are? Townlake (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:CANVASS it is acceptable since it was limited and neutrally worded. It's not something I would do if I was running for RfA, but I dont think people should oppose because he alerted five guys, most of whom haven't even voted. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Watchlists. My question to you stands. Townlake (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not sure I understand. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Townlake, I haven't looked at the merits of the canvassing issue, but your question above ("How stupid do you think we are") is both uncivil and unconstructive, and insisting on an answer to the question makes no sense. What are the possible answers? Very stupid? A little stupid? Not stupid at all? Really.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious. The answer has to be at least "a little," and in fact may be much more dire. Townlake (talk) 01:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I don't thin you are stupid. Do you think I am stupid? Please read WP:Canvass again. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        What I believe Townlake is saying is that a large number of people could have been drawn in through seeing the message pop up on their watchlists and then going to read it. It's likely that this would draw in like-minded people and, if the initial messages aren't enough to be considered canvassing, then the added people attracted through talkpage watchlisting might. Samsara 02:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        For anybody interested in the annals of RfA canvassing, please have a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Piotrus 3#Canvassing. Kraxler (talk) 04:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to WP:Canvassing, see its WP:Votestacking section; the editors Doniago contacted are more likely to support him than not. While I'm familiar with all those editors, I'm more familiar with Tenebrae, MarnetteD and Betty Logan; they are all film editors who respect Doniago and work well with him. I won't comment in this WP:RfA; I simply decided to provide insight into this aspect of it. I also generally get along with Doniago, and I think he perhaps didn't think of this as WP:Canvassing when he did it. I think it would be good to see what he has to state on this. Flyer22 (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone failed to read Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, including #12 of Specific Points, and the red warning note at the top. Softlavender (talk) 10:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn

Please consider my nomination withdrawn at this time. While it was most certainly not my intention to bias the voting in any manner, I acknowledge that my informing other editors of the RfA may have had that effect regardless. My only consolation is that I was the party most directly injured by my error.

My thanks to all of those who supported me in spite of that misstep, and to all of the participants in general for their time and effort, My deepest apologies to all of you for having wasted your time with an RfA that was essentially flawed from inception. DonIago (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]