This is an RfA talk page. While voting and most discussion should occur on the main RfA page, sometimes discussions stray off-topic or otherwise clutter that page. The RfA talk page serves to unclutter the main RfA page by hosting discussions that are not related to the candidacy. Please remain calm and civil in discussions on both pages, avoiding personal attacks and harassment. Uninvolved administrators can still fully intervene in RfAs. Discussions should stay on-topic; consider moving or continuing discussions that are going off-topic elsewhere. Move discussions not germane to the candidacy here, then link them with ((subst:rfan|dm|name of section header)), indented to the original vote. Be conservative in using the template; obvious trolls and disruptive participants need not be noticed. Otherwise, avoid starting discussions here if they would be of interest to RfA participants and can fit on the main RfA page; generally, discussions should begin at the "General comments" section or as an indented reply to a vote.

I use to know how this is done, but unfortunately I can't seem to remember. The username is familiar, and I am quite certain I have crossed paths with this editor, but I can't remember if it was for good or not-so-good, can anyone share a link on how I can see pages we both edited, especially AFDs? HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HandsomeBoy Would something like https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py or https://interaction-timeline.toolforge.org/?wiki=enwiki help? -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. Even better than what I use to know.HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see anything, maybe there is something I am not doing right.HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. Your interaction with MB is at [1]. Primefac (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it proper for the rebuttal to Q10 by User:RZuo to remain where it is? It doesn't seem like a follow-up question, and gives undue weight to the user's position, in a place where no other editor may respond (except the candidate, who is expected not to).

Can a passing crat move the two comments beneath the answer to Q10 to the appropriate oppose !vote, currently at number 12? Or into the general comments section? Or reply here with a "not done" template?

Full disclosure I have not participated in this RfA, or pretty much anywhere else recently. Folly Mox (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion by the same user is a bit questionable as well, and may also benefit from clerking to restore it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this is the case - the number seems to be wrong (127/1/5) as I can see 29 opposes at this time. Turini2 (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Either a LISTGAP or caching issue, seems to be sorted now. Primefac (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As of this datestamp, the software is showing an incorrect number of opposes

While there are 28 contributors who've listed themselves as opposing, the counter says only one. Is there some obvious soft return I'm missing? BusterD (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

snap! Great minds clearly think alike :) Turini2 (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict with Turini2 above, clearly more than one of us is seeing the error. BusterD (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aidan9382 seems to have fixed it :) Turini2 (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's still wrong - says "143/6/7" when there are 31 opposes! Please fix properly. Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, a recent update to an oppose broke the numbering temporarily. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]