Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Pppery

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 have to say, as a general rule I find the Neutrals section mostly unhelpful and a bit useless. This is the first time in memory that there's anything worth reading there, and I've read the whole thing at least twice now. Valereee (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Whereas I often find the neutrals useful from day 2 onwards, but I concur that this is a particular beneficial case. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Not that I particularly care, but the numbered list of supports has 196 entries, which is why I changed the tally to 196. I apologize if there's something that I missed or am otherwise not aware of. — SamX 18:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@SamX: This is entry no. 195. It is the last entry in the Support section. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

AJ29 struck their vote, which currently sits between entries 18 and 19 – it doesn't count, so it's 195. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Weird. It's still rendering as 196 for me, but that's probably because I have Convenient Discussions enabled. It seems to be parsing Serial Number 54129's addendum as another numbered list item, which I overlooked. Sorry about that. — SamX 21:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)