Username	Khoikhoi
Total edits	40132
Distinct pages edited	15688
Average edits/page	2.558
First edit	01:24, 9 December 2005
	
(main)	22689
Talk	3203
User	1155
User talk	8764
Image	113
Image talk	4
Template	417
Template talk	65
Category	80
Category talk	1
Wikipedia	3544
Wikipedia talk	53
Portal	41
Portal talk	3

Khoikhoi's editcount summary stats as of 00:11, October 14 2006, using Interiot's tool. (aeropagitica) 00:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this page to its proper title. This is consistent with other 2nd and subsequent RfA nominations. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 01:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As we all know, the previous nomination was ruined by malignant trolls. I'm quite surprized that Bcrats didn't learn their lessons and allow this case to be plagued by the same evil. Is it a new fashion to steep RfAs in incivility? Sigh... --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that User:Mustafa Akalp has been campaigning against this candidate, spamming his "strong oppose" opinion on the talk pages of multiple users (see [1]). Gwernol 12:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has also spammed in the Turkish WP. Contribs. •NikoSilver• 15:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's personal info is also being spammed to various articles he has worked on along with a request to come here and oppose, most likely by the open proxy vandal know as Bonaparte. --InShaneee 20:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought the matter to the attention of the bureaucrat on the Turkish Wikipedia. Errabee 00:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In view of increasingly repeated vote-bullying and spamming by various anonymous IP's and regular user accounts, due to the user's apparent involvement in controversial issues, I propose early closing of this nomination. It has already been 6 days since acceptance by the nominee, and this could be used to set a precedent for similar cases where there is obstruction by permabanned and POV-pushing users. •NikoSilver• 16:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added relative notes with diffs below each user that I could find as being positively contacted by RfA vote spamming prior to their vote. A few were also contacted by articles they watch, such as Allah. I would like to know how serious template {{!vote}} is, when it says: "Such contributors are not prohibited from commenting, but it's important for the closing administrator or bureaucrat to know how representative the participants are of Wikipedians generally". •NikoSilver• 16:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]