Hlnodovic Clarification Through the intercession of a lady, I've finally been cleared (not discuss the reason for the impasse, but will promote a more transparent about it). Firstly I offer my vote to all those who have misinterpreted my intention. As all people of good faith, have to understand that this offer is not unconditional, but that does not necessarily require reciprocity. Nobody has the time to participate in all votes in force, so it seems useful to some people invite me to vote on queries that they have selected and avoid me having to check them one by one. After receiving the message, I discuss whether my participation seems pertinent, study the reason for the consultation and decide. If deemed necessary argument. If the situation is ambiguous, I review the arguments of others. Is likely to vote as he extended the invitation, but I assure you, perhaps I abstain if your posture does not seem sustainable, but I do not want to support the opposite point.Those who received my offer, no doubt have played well, without much explanation. In making the invitations have not done a thorough analysis of each user, over time may determine to what Wikipedians worth supporting and which not and, in turn, they will know whether they can count on my vote or not. It seems useful to take coordinated, so our vote is helpful. I see nothing objectionable in this attitude, if even in the United Nations and is advanced in some legislation has regulated the lobby, while there is no undue pressure or compulsion nothing unethical. Josyann Abisaab As proof of my good faith, serve the links Dodo has sent: the invitations are in the public eye who is interested in inquiries (if I were doing something surreptitious, have used the IRC channel). I would call the business diplomacy that I have deployed before the blockade that prevented me explain my position.It never ceases to amaze me that spirits tend to be belligerent and hypersensitive to see attacks where none exist Do you think a terrible threat to resort to the CRC Anyone who has bothered to read excerpts from my boring words can you find the slightest attack Moreover, Why ask for more questioning if there has been for over a month without reaching any result My problem with Dodo is reduced to using a template (a trifle, but it must be clarified), the worst that could happen is you can not remove them. Moreover, though my position seems well founded, can not be certain that the resolution will favor me, maybe there are factors that do not know, for instance if in Spain (where the bulk of Wikipedians) versions prior to IE 7 ( I do not know which version you have, but on all computers I have access to the workforce need to display special characters from classical Greek) are no longer used, unlike what happens in Chile where they outnumber.I trust the impartiality of the CRC, otherwise he would not have raised the issue, asked only to be disabled-in this particular case-a member who had expressed their position in advance (this same librarian accepted the invitation to vote a few months ago I sent him, although he preferred the option opposite of what I had imagined. It may not simply accepted it and agreed on the vote but in any case, raised no objection). If Dodo considers me as his enemy, the feeling will be unilateral. He is of volcanic origin, but I, phlegmatic par excellence, stoically resist the attacks if prosiguieren, my only response will be to act so ever colder. Also as I practice Buddhist detachment. I have no interest in rummaging the garbage about Dodo and initiate campaigns against him, everyone knows his conduct, and have formed their opinion.By the way, I'm flattered you consider me a veteran or the puppet of an experienced user, had imagined that he took me for a fool. The truth is I'm just a novice user a few months, there do not make mistakes already, but others will commit yet on the road. For my identity there are some in the same discussion that can attest to my previous existence. If I learned anything from Dodo is that Wikipedia policy is enough, those who say it is not a democracy but an encyclopedia are right, but have a partial view: as an organization has power games and, for them to move within the sphere of legitimate, it is necessary the existence of clear rules. Instead of spending energy in struggling with others, propose the development of regulations to provide greater certainty. (for instance with defined types for conduct punishable, scale of penalties and minimum procedural guarantees).