Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/MB

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)

:{{u|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)

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

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

:::Could be. Your interaction with MB is at [https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=HandsomeBoy&users=MB&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki]. Primefac (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

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)

:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MB&diff=1131251426&oldid=1131249160 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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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

: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)

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