Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/EuroCarGT



General statistics [hide] User ID:	16471882 User groups:	autoreviewer, filemover, massmessage-sender, reviewer, rollbacker, user, autoconfirmed • global: OTRS-member First edit:	Mar 13, 2012, 11:47 PM Latest edit:	Feb 24, 2015, 1:46 AM Live edits:	21,692 Deleted edits:	2,154 Total edits: 	23,846 Edits in the past 24 hours:	7 Edits in the past 7 days:	71 Edits in the past 30 days:	176 Edits in the past 365 days:	5,712 Ø number of edits per day:	22.1

Live edits: Unique pages edited:	14,572 Pages created:	3,024 Pages moved:	351 Ø edits per page:	1.5 Ø change per page (bytes):	extended Files uploaded:	51 Files uploaded (Commons):	252 (Semi-)automated edits:	14,984 Reverted edits:	63 Edits with summary:	21,425 Number of minor edits (tagged):	9,570 Number of edits (<20 bytes):	extended Number of edits (>1000 bytes):	extended Actions: Thank:	183 x Approve:	61 x Patrol:	1,533 x Admin actions Block:	0 x Protect:	0 x Delete:	0 x Import:	0 x Blocks: (Re)blocked:	1 x Longest block: infinite Current block: – SUL editcounter (approximate):	latest ► enwiki 	23,107 	+59 minutes commonswiki 	889 	+3 days metawiki 	55 	+1 day wikidatawiki 	23 	> 30 days simplewiki 	12 	> 30 days testwiki 	5 	> 30 days enwikivoyage 	2 	> 30 days mediawikiwiki 	2 	> 30 days ukwiki 	1 	> 30 days enwikiversity 	1 	> 30 days frwiki 	1 	> 30 days 73 others	1	+15 days Total edits	24,099

bla bla Namespace Totals [hide] Article 	10,311 	47.5% Talk 	199 	0.9% User 	1,752 	8.1% User talk 	6,116 	28.2% Wikipedia 	1,990 	9.2% Wikipedia talk 	138 	0.6% File 	994 	4.6% File talk 	83 	0.4% MediaWiki talk 	1 	0% Template 	54 	0.2% Template talk 	4 	0% Help 	3 	0% Category 	26 	0.1% Category talk 	3 	0% Portal 	1 	0% Book 	1 	0% Draft 	15 	0.1% Draft talk 	1 	0% Year counts [hide] 2012 	19	2013 	14,696	2014 	6,706	2015 	271

Time card [hide] Timecard Latest edit (global) - Edits in the past 30 days, max. 10 / Wiki [hide] Date ↓ 	Wiki  ↓ 	Links  ↓ 	Page title  ↓ 	Comment  ↓ 2015-02-24, 01:46 	enwiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	Hemmatabad (disambiguation) 	TOC right 2015-02-24, 01:08 	enwiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	User talk:EuroCarGT 	/* Adminship */ Question 2015-02-24, 00:47 	enwiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EuroCarGT 	Accept and answers to questions 2015-02-23, 05:07 	enwiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	Accreditation 	/* Fields that involve accreditation */ rm 2015-02-23, 05:07 	enwiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	Accreditation 	/* See also */ Rm dash to disamb. page 2015-02-23, 02:51 	enwiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Poet mm tobias 	According to "want to create a new one" 2015-02-23, 02:50 	enwiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Poet mm tobias 	Closing discussion 2015-02-23, 02:12 	metawiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	Stewards/Elections 2015/Votes/Vodomar 	Voted no 2015-02-23, 02:12 	metawiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	Stewards/Elections 2015/Votes/Taketa 	Voted yes 2015-02-23, 02:12 	metawiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	Stewards/Elections 2015/Votes/Stryn 	Voted yes 2015-02-23, 02:12 	metawiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	Stewards/Elections 2015/Votes/Pmlineditor 	Voted yes 2015-02-23, 02:11 	metawiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	Stewards/Elections 2015/Votes/Natuur12 	Voted yes 2015-02-23, 02:10 	metawiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	Stewards/Elections 2015/Votes/Mys 721tx 	Voted yes 2015-02-23, 02:10 	metawiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	Stewards/Elections 2015/Votes/MarcoAurelio 	Voted yes 2015-02-23, 02:09 	metawiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	Stewards/Elections 2015/Votes/Linedwell 	Voted yes 2015-02-23, 02:08 	metawiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	Stewards/Elections 2015/Votes/Jusjih 	Voted yes 2015-02-23, 02:07 	metawiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	Stewards/Elections 2015/Votes/Einsbor 	Voted yes 2015-02-23, 01:22 	enwiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	Park Sojin 	Undid revision 648407555 by [[Special:Contributions/65.18... 2015-02-23, 00:54 	enwiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	Ice cream parlor 	Rm - Week is over - Thanks to everyone involved! 2015-02-22, 19:17 	enwiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement 	Undid revision 648361765 by [[Special:Contributions/EuroC... 2015-02-20, 21:32 	commonswiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	User talk:Jianhui67 	/* Administrator */ congrats 2015-02-20, 03:34 	commonswiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:York Minster Choir, Nth Yorkshire, UK - Diliff.jpg 	/* File:York Minster Choir, Nth Yorkshire, UK - Diliff.jp... 2015-02-20, 03:34 	commonswiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:York Minster Rood Screen, Nth Yorkshire, UK - Diliff.jpg 	/* File:York Minster Rood Screen, Nth Yorkshire, UK - Dil... 2015-02-20, 03:33 	commonswiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Seljalandsfoss, Suðurland, Islandia, 2014-08-16, DD 189-191 HDR.JPG 	/* File:Seljalandsfoss, Suðurland, Islandia, 2014-08-16, ... 2015-02-20, 03:28 	commonswiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Leonardo da Vinci - Virgin and Child with St Anne C2RMF retouched.jpg/2 	/* File:Leonardo da Vinci - Virgin and Child with St Anne... 2015-02-20, 03:25 	commonswiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lloyd's Building - Escalators fisheye.jpg 	/* File:Lloyd's Building - Escalators fisheye.jpg */ s 2015-02-20, 03:24 	commonswiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gorce - polana Podskały (by Pudelek).jpg 	/* File:Gorce - polana Podskały (by Pudelek).jpg */ s 2015-02-20, 03:23 	commonswiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	User:EuroCarGT/Page 	Temporary so I could test out a new user page design 2015-02-20, 03:13 	commonswiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:14-01-11 Yvi Quainoo Cologne 11.jpg 	/* File:14-01-11 Yvi Quainoo Cologne 11.jpg */ +s 2015-02-20, 02:53 	commonswiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Francesco Hayez 008.jpg 	/* File:Francesco Hayez 008.jpg (delist) */ DR 2015-02-08, 17:47 	enwikinews 	( diff · log · top ) 	User:EuroCarGT 	Soft redirect

Month counts [hide] 2012-03 	3	2012-05 	1	2012-07 	4	2012-08 	2	2012-10 	5	2012-11 	4	2013-01 	1	2013-02 	6	2013-03 	10	2013-04 	2	2013-05 	5	2013-06 	58	2013-07 	286	2013-08 	1,181	2013-09 	4,511	2013-10 	7,089	2013-11 	1,131	2013-12 	416	2014-01 	747	2014-02 	606	2014-03 	624	2014-04 	832	2014-05 	581	2014-06 	359	2014-07 	911	2014-08 	599	2014-09 	242	2014-10 	416	2014-11 	550	2014-12 	239	2015-01 	125	2015-02 	146

Top edited pages [hide] Article 95 	December 2013 North American ice storm 	log · page history · topedits 29 	Jordan Maron 	log · page history · topedits 25 	2014 Fort Hood shooting 	log · page history · topedits 24 	Subway Surfers 	log · page history · topedits 22 	Microsoft Surface Pro 3 	log · page history · topedits 22 	The Amazing Race Canada 1 	log · page history · topedits 20 	Quirimbas Islands 	log · page history · topedits 17 	International airport 	log · page history · topedits 14 	Full Throttle (roller coaster) 	log · page history · topedits 14 	HTC One (M8) 	log · page history · topedits 13 	Steak 	log · page history · topedits 13 	Amherst Cove 	log · page history · topedits 12 	Fire Phone 	log · page history · topedits 12 	Moto G 	log · page history · topedits 12 	List of life sciences 	log · page history · topedits -More- Talk 16 	Talk:Ontario Highway 25/GA1 	log · page history · topedits 11 	Talk:December 2013 North American ice storm 	log · page history · topedits 10 	Talk:Summit Series/GA1 	log · page history · topedits 8 	Talk:Jennifer Lopez/GA1 	log · page history · topedits 8 	Talk:Ontario Highway 64/GA1 	log · page history · topedits 7 	Talk:Full Throttle (roller coaster)/GA1 	log · page history · topedits 6 	Talk:Late 2013 North American cold wave 	log · page history · topedits 5 	Talk:Ashley Solomon 	log · page history · topedits 3 	Talk:December 2013 Volgograd bombings 	log · page history · topedits 3 	Talk:Summit Series 	log · page history · topedits 3 	Talk:List of life sciences 	log · page history · topedits 3 	Talk:The Amazing Race Canada 1 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Talk:Taco 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Talk:Ontario Highway 25 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Talk:Jordan Maron 	log · page history · topedits -More- User 1009 	User:EuroCarGT/CSD log 	log · page history · topedits 119 	User:EuroCarGT 	log · page history · topedits 80 	User:EuroCarGT/RFA & RFB Count 2014 	log · page history · topedits 58 	User:EuroCarGT/Status 	log · page history · topedits 26 	User:EuroCarGT/Page 	log · page history · topedits 23 	User:EuroCarGT/sandbox 	log · page history · topedits 22 	User:EuroCarGT/huggle.css 	log · page history · topedits 16 	User:EuroCarGT/Terms 	log · page history · topedits 13 	User:EuroCarGT/sandbox/1 	log · page history · topedits 10 	User:EuroCarGT/sandbox/UserpageTestBed 	log · page history · topedits 10 	User:EuroCarGT/Toolbox 	log · page history · topedits 10 	User:EuroCarGT/common.js 	log · page history · topedits 9 	User:EuroCarGT/Userpage Design 	log · page history · topedits 9 	User:EuroCarGT/FMV 	log · page history · topedits 9 	User:EuroCarGT/Possible FPC 	log · page history · topedits -More- User talk 359 	User talk:EuroCarGT 	log · page history · topedits 28 	User talk:Mark Arsten 	log · page history · topedits 17 	User talk:Evad37 	log · page history · topedits 14 	User talk:Acalamari 	log · page history · topedits 12 	User talk:Ponyo 	log · page history · topedits 12 	User talk:FreeRangeFrog 	log · page history · topedits 12 	User talk:TLSuda 	log · page history · topedits 12 	User talk:EvergreenFir 	log · page history · topedits 11 	User talk:69.113.135.95 	log · page history · topedits 11 	User talk:Ross Hill 	log · page history · topedits 11 	User talk:Ginsuloft 	log · page history · topedits 11 	User talk:Secondarywaltz 	log · page history · topedits 10 	User talk:EuroCarGT/Editnotice 	log · page history · topedits 10 	User talk:EuroCarGT/TWA 	log · page history · topedits 9 	User talk:Discospinster 	log · page history · topedits -More- Wikipedia 264 	Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism 	log · page history · topedits 140 	Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop 	log · page history · topedits 119 	Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions 	log · page history · topedits 80 	Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop 	log · page history · topedits 77 	Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention 	log · page history · topedits 37 	Wikipedia:Requests for page protection 	log · page history · topedits 29 	Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback 	log · page history · topedits 27 	Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects 	log · page history · topedits 25 	Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop 	log · page history · topedits 22 	Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion 	log · page history · topedits 19 	Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People 	log · page history · topedits 18 	Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations 	log · page history · topedits 17 	Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English 	log · page history · topedits 15 	Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates 	log · page history · topedits 13 	Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed 	log · page history · topedits -More- Wikipedia talk 46 	Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement 	log · page history · topedits 26 	Wikipedia talk:STiki 	log · page history · topedits 7 	Wikipedia talk:Mass message senders 	log · page history · topedits 3 	Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage 	log · page history · topedits 3 	Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Wikipedia talk:Mass message senders/Preload/PERM 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Yaris678 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Weekender Singapore 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sean Declase 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stopklatka.pl 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Marquez 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lidia Grychtołówna 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Winfred Tovar 	log · page history · topedits -More- File 6 	File:Fairleigh Dickinson University Seal.svg 	log · page history · topedits 5 	File:ECNU Emblem.svg 	log · page history · topedits 5 	File:WilliamCWoxlin pressfoto 2014.jpg 	log · page history · topedits 4 	File:Ryan G.G.S. Whitelaw.jpg 	log · page history · topedits 4 	File:Rowan-Gloucester County logo.png 	log · page history · topedits 4 	File:Twisted dvd cover.png 	log · page history · topedits 3 	File:Gouverneur Health Logo.jpg 	log · page history · topedits 3 	File:Boston Arts Academy Building.jpg 	log · page history · topedits 3 	File:2015 WJHC logo.png 	log · page history · topedits 3 	File:EuroCarGT User Page Banner 2014.png 	log · page history · topedits 3 	File:EuroCarGT Banner.png 	log · page history · topedits 3 	File:The Book of Life (2014 film) poster.jpg 	log · page history · topedits 3 	File:Nissan -series 1 headlight with series 2 reflector.jpg 	log · page history · topedits 3 	File:Arthur Devis, The Love Song, 1749, two members of Challoner, Aynscombe, Smith, Bisse, or associated family (b&w, no frame).jpg 	log · page history · topedits 3 	File:Oslo 2022 Candidate City logo.png 	log · page history · topedits -More- File talk 2 	File talk:The Trix.png 	log · page history · topedits 2 	File talk:Default starting position in Microsoft Flight Simulator 5.1.png 	log · page history · topedits 2 	File talk:Johns Hopkins Blue Jays.svg 	log · page history · topedits 2 	File talk:Coldplay - Ghost Stories Live 2014 (Artwork).jpg 	log · page history · topedits 2 	File talk:WWME-CD Logo.png 	log · page history · topedits 1 	File talk:Beautiful Goal (Paul Oakenfold).jpg 	log · page history · topedits 1 	File talk:The Collins arrive.jpg 	log · page history · topedits 1 	File talk:Neo-Geo X and Neo-Geo AES resolution comparision.png 	log · page history · topedits 1 	File talk:Steven Tyler (musician).jpg 	log · page history · topedits 1 	File talk:Aspis.JPG 	log · page history · topedits 1 	File talk:Point Loma Nazarene athletics logo.png 	log · page history · topedits 1 	File talk:Battle of Thermopylae (1941).jpg 	log · page history · topedits 1 	File talk:1734329-barton1.jpg 	log · page history · topedits 1 	File talk:B 0110A.jpg 	log · page history · topedits 1 	File talk:Amon.JPG 	log · page history · topedits -More- MediaWiki talk 1 	MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist 	log · page history · topedits Template 4 	Template:Android smartphones 	log · page history · topedits 3 	Template:Preston North End F.C. managers 	log · page history · topedits 3 	Template:Galaxy Tab 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Template:Flavour quantum numbers 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Template:Acer Inc. 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Template:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop/Top 4 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Template:Comedy-horror-film-stub 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Template:Infobox food 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Template:TTC lines and stations 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Template:IPhone models 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Template:Pronunciation needed 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Template:Defunct airlines of Canada 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Template:User male 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Template:MLB managers by team 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Template:Detroit Lions roster 	log · page history · topedits -More- Template talk 2 	Template talk:Archive top 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Template talk:Editcount 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Template talk:Culture of Pakistan 	log · page history · topedits Help 2 	Help:Rename 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Help:Link 	log · page history · topedits Category 2 	Category:Animated romance films 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Category:Jewish Armenian history 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Category:Animated adventure films 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Category:Painters from Connecticut 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Category:Animated comedy films 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Category:Animated fantasy films 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Category:Animated musical films 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Category:Valleys of Alberta 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Category:Wolfgang albums 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Category:Sport in Rio de Janeiro (city) 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Category:Mexican post-rock groups 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Category:Animated horror films 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Category:Science 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Category:People from Govan 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Category:Wikipedians in New Zealand 	log · page history · topedits -More- Category talk 2 	Category talk:Members of the Order of Canada 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Category talk:Wikipedians 	log · page history · topedits Portal 1 	Portal:Arts/Featured article/18 	log · page history · topedits Book 1 	Book:Motorsport in Germany 	log · page history · topedits Draft 2 	Draft:Maîtrise de Toulouse (Conservatoire de Toulouse) 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Draft:European Platform for the Responsible Use of Medicines in Animals 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Draft:Haagsche Zwaan 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Draft:Rebecca Elise Lamb 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Draft:Mitch Viegut 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Draft:Adam Horner 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Draft:NAMUR - User Association of Automation Technology in Process Industries 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Draft:Secaucus Home News 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Draft:Ian Engelmann 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Draft:European Resolution Capital 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Draft:Language Technology Centre 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Draft:Bodhtree (company) 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Draft:Fabien Petitcolas 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Draft:Example 	log · page history · topedits Draft talk 1 	Draft talk:Maîtrise de Toulouse (Conservatoire de Toulouse) 	log · page history · topedits

(Semi-)automated edits (approximate) [hide] 9,177 	Huggle 3,415 	Twinkle 1,944 	STiki 402 	Articles For Creation tool 39 	AutoWikiBrowser 6 	Igloo 1 	Popups 0 	HotCat 0 	FurMe 0 	WPCleaner 0 	NPWatcher

Question from 75.108.15.42 about talk page history
I just looked and there are no logs of anything being deleted from the talk page history and I didn't see any struck revisions nor notice any out-of-place changes that would suggest a lot of oversighted history. Unless there is something I'm missing, I am of the opinion that this question should be struck, deleted, or at least clarified that the premise is false. --B (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The IP was referring to EuroCarGT's user page, where they have some revdel'd revisions which hide some personally identifying information. Sam Walton (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you, I misread the question. Apologies.  (Obviously, I still don't believe it should be phrased as "hiding" anything.) --B (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I meant it as literally removing the information from view, not to imply that that was a bad thing; it's a perfectly legitimate use of revdel. I'm sure EuroCar will say much of the same if they respond to the question, but consider this a verification that nothing 'bad' is being hidden away. Sam Walton (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

semiprotected edit request
As the opposers of IP users' right to edit RfA pages vandalized yet another RfA page while logged out in order to then protect it, I cannot post the following comment myself. I'd ask that someone else post it for me.

PLEASE DO THE FOLLOWING:

1. Go to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/EuroCarGT&action=edit&section=4

2. copypaste the following text at the bottom of the window, yes, including the time stamp

3. save the page

Thx. 117.139.100.93 (talk) 03:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I will answer your question. There's one deleted edit. It's a nomination for adminship dated April 25, 2014; the user declined the nomination and the page was deleted a few days later. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I asked no questions so I'm not sure what you're "answering" here - nor do I care. I made a very specific edit request which has now been reactivated. Please answer the edit request, not some made up questions. 117.139.100.93 (talk) 04:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * request noted. Request declined. Gaff (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I had actually forgotten about this. When I wrote the nomination I remembered that EuroCarGT had asked me to look through his edits before, but I didn't remember deleting the old RfA page. I don't think I would have mentioned it even if I had remembered, though - as Diannaa says, it was just an RfA nomination that EuroCar declined, not an actual RfA. If candidates have been through an actual RfA before, then they pop up on my checklist and I mention them in my nomination. There haven't been any exceptions to that rule to date, and I don't think I would make any, as an actual RfA is a rather big thing to gloss over. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 06:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

"As the opposers of IP users' right to edit RfA pages vandalized yet another RfA page while logged out in order to then protect it" -- Why do you presume this? I see no evidence for your statement; it seems more likely to me that it was just someone being obnoxious. Besides, no one has any rights here. ekips39 (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Extended oppose discussion
The following has been moved here from below Andrew Davidson's oppose. It is unrelated to the RfA in question & as noted by at least one user is off-putting to voters. Sam Walton (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Gee, maybe we should add a new section to all RfAs: Oppose by Andrew Davidson.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , or maybe part of every RfA from now on is that you must sign Andrew Davidson's name down in the oppose section so he doesn't have to do it himself.  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 01:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Or so if he's on a WikiBreak. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 01:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, according to this Andrew Davidson has supported 6 RfAs and opposed 12. Is that really sufficient to justify this discussion? BMK (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's neat page, .--Bbb23 (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But AD has also opposed the past five RFA's he has !voted on, and they all seem to be for some frivolous reason like the rationale above. No one here is a perfect content creator and he needs to recognize that. EuroCarGT has made plenty of excellent content contributions to Wikipedia and I'm certain that he will continue to do so. And I'm also certain that I'm not only person that's starting to find AD's presence at RFAs disruptive.  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 02:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Andrew's now on a quest to Oppose every RFA he comes across, and I also think we should ignore his comments too!, We could topic ban but meh no point really. – Davey 2010 Talk 03:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree that a topic ban would have no point. RfA has a bad reputation because this nonsense used to be more prevalent. Continuing to take a firm hand with this baloney would be good PR for RfA. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's create a bot to just automatically mark each new RfA as having at least one oppose vote as a favor to Andrew. Again, just another frivolous idea that may well be considered. But seriously though, let the closing 'crat decide if this oppose comment has merit. Epic Genius (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Allow me to quote from WP:RFA: "The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many, or even most, requests; other editors routinely support many, or even most, requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as 'trolling' by some. Before commenting or responding to comments in an RfA (especially Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which may feel like 'baiting'), consider whether other users are likely to treat it as influential or take it very seriously and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for what you would reply . At the very least, not fanning the fire will avoid making the situation worse. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones. (emphasis added)" This really seems like a discussion which would be better taking place on Andrew Davidson's talk page, not here. BMK (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I remain content with my position. If other editors wish to challenge it, that's fine but they need to do better than the stuff we see here and should please focus upon the merits of the candidate and the evidence presented.  I'm not the only editor who seems to think that steak is nowhere near GA quality.  I looked through the candidate's article creations and found them to be quite marginal — PR stuff like Simband and Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 Lite.  I looked through their AFD comments and found that they tended to be vague waves without any detailed evidence.  I also noticed that the candidate often trips over their words so that they seem ungrammatical.  So, I reviewed the candidate in three ways - GA, AFD and article creations - and concluded that that was three strikes.  Now, having come to this conclusion, should I have paid any attention to my voting record in other recent RfAs?  Should I have voted against my judgement to make my voting record fit some norm or to make me look better?  How many other voters are voting to polish their own image or to fit in with the crowd?  One recent creation of my own is Parliament in the Making.  That's about the history of democracy in the UK and one milestone in that was the Ballot Act 1872 which introduced the secret ballot.  This was done so that voters would not be subject to intimidation and so could vote according to their true inclination.  We have secret ballots for arbcom now to ensure that they are done properly and it's the same for other institutions such as the boards of trustees.  Why is RfA different? Andrew D. (talk) 08:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion on the question of anonymous voting at WT:RfA. Sam Walton (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * RE Andrew D. "Why is RfA different?" - That's easy to explain: ArbCom elections are decided by plain numbers, with certain numerical requirements. RfA requires rationales to be stated, and occosionally to be discussed. In theory, RfA is not just a numerical count, although the successful, unsuccessful and discretionary ranges are quite well established, and very much follow the numbers, in practice. That said, I'd like to say that Andrew D. stated a perfectly valid rationale, opposing this candidate according to Andrew's own (necessarily subjective) criteria. The first badgering comment by Bbb23 (which triggered a discussion of the !voter, instead of his rationale/reasons) was uncalled for, and constitutes conduct unbecoming an admin. I'll re-iterate: At RfA, the !voters are not under scrutiny, the candidate is. This whole discussion is out of scope, and should be moved to the talk page, again, sigh. Kraxler (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Rationales are not actually required at RfA as it is quite common for supporters to say little or nothing and even an oppose can be quite perfunctory. Going into details is usually counter-productive as the apologists just pooh-pooh them, saying that they are insignificant, dated or otherwise don't count.  You then have to find a smoking gun to make the case stick and only the worst candidates leave those behind. Andrew D. (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * (I hope you don't mind if I jump in here?) It seems helpful if an editor opposes multiple RfAs. That way, the 'dirt' he kicks up can be inspected closer, and we can get a glimpse at what is beneath. It helps to see things from another angle. -- Orduin  Discuss 20:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it is like the parable of the blind men and an elephant. The activities of a busy editor tend to be quite large and difficult to grasp quickly.  If we all examine them from our different perspectives, then an overall picture may emerge.Andrew D. (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought they were beating it. Beating it with a stick... heh  § FreeRangeFrog  croak 23:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Best description of an RfA I have read or seen. A pic does sometimes speak several tens of thousand words. Irondome (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Speaking as someone whose RFA was opposed by Andrew just last month: I think you should all quit jumping on him for his !votes. He has a right to his opinion, but more than that: his opposes are not just made up. They are based on an actual analysis of the person's editing record. In fact, at my RfA Andrew's was the ONLY oppose (out of five) that was based on the person doing actual research into my contributions. Yes, maybe he was looking for reasons (or excuses) to oppose, but at least he was doing the research; how many others can say as much? I respect him for that, and I respect the way he stands behind his comments. Seriously, which is more disruptive to an RfA: a single oppose vote, or a mass piling on of objections to that oppose vote? My request: do any future candidates a favor and just let his vote stand. One oppose is not going to derail a valid nomination, but all the drama about it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. --MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well said. BMK (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, Andrew's oppose !votes are sufficiently well worded and grounded in solid and reasoned argument, that they can be used as further talking points about a candidate. By analysing and discussing concerns about a candidate, I think it gives them a stronger and fairer mandate. Indeed, I would say that, although I strongly supported MelanieN, the discussion about her track record at AfD meant that Andrew's oppose in itself was a net positive. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've gotta agree. Andrew's opposes are grounded by evidence, which I respect. Epic Genius (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion concerning RightCowLeftCoast's neutral
When a person has no content, people oppose and say that you should at least have created/improved an article or two. When people do have some content creation, people then oppose because the articles are not perfect. When a person has a fantastic record of flawless content, people oppose the candidate because they don't have enough maintenance work. The point: you can't win. -- Biblio worm  03:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And yet 4 out of the last 7 RfAs have passed, so it seems that you can win afater all. BMK (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * IMO, we need about 1000 new admins this year, i.e. 3/4 every day. 4 new admins in one and a half months does not look like a "win" to me. I too used to think that new admins should get examined by a super microscope or something. Looking at piling backlogs, overworked admins forced to make rash decisions, etc. has changed my mind.OrangesRyellow (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind, however, that WP:Wikipedia is not about winning. I know that page applies more to disputes, but its sentiment still stands. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 07:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should have made this clear already. I was not talking about any personal victory. I was saying that it would be a "win" for Wikipedia, for all of us Wikipedians.OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) @OrangesRellow: I'm sorry, we may well be in need of more admins than we have, although I've yet to be totally convinced of that, but your estimate of 1000 new admins needed this year is, I'm afraid, totally ridiculous, and if achieved would water down the quality of the admin corps precipitously. While I agree that RfA has become an unpleasant travail that few people would willingly subject themselves to, I believe that the answer to that is to move the goal posts just a bit.  Right now, a supermajority of 80% is required to become an admnin, and those below 70% generally do not get the bit, but 70% is a pretty significant supermajority in any political system, where 67% is often sufficient for a veto override to pass, for instance.  I would suggest that 70% become the new passing standard, and below 60% the new failing point, with the votes in between being deteremined by discussions between bureaucrats. BMK (talk) 07:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you find the stats for the number of admins per article, and the number of admins per user, we had in say 2008, and compared it with today's stats, that might go some way in convincing you for the need for 1000 new admins this year. Rather than quality of admins, I think we should be thinking about quality of admin decisions. If we have too few admins, it means they must rush to clear the backlogs and make poor quality decisions based on superficial investigations. So, we get poor quality decisions despite having capable admins who know it all inside out and can quote all the policies and guidelines even while sleeping. They simply did not get a chance to apply themselves properly.OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * While admins per user might be a useful stat, admins per article is clearly a totally unuseful metric, since the number of articles grows and grows, but there's no particular evidence that admin overhead is tied to the number of articles in the encyclopedia. My own feeling is that admin work would be decreased significantly if en.wiki were more aggressively pro-active about identifying, blocking and banning disruptive elements, instead of (essentially) protecting them until their disruptive activities can no longer be overlooked and must be dealt with. Wikipedia could well be the poster child for "innocent until proven guilty" run wild - notwithstanding the fact that as a privately owned website, it has no obligation to provide anyone with any "rights", and could, if it chose to, ban or block disruptive elements at the very first sign of misbehavior. (And that's not even dealing with the fact that allowing IPs to edit without registering is probably the most disruptive aspect of Wikipedia's structure, causing untold hours of admin activity that would be unnecessary if registration wer simply required, as it is on 99% of other websites). BMK (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You are suggesting ways to reduce admin-work. You seem to accept that the admin-corps is suffering from overload, and is having difficulty in properly handling the current level of mess. I think my point has been made. Only thing that remains now is how we cope with this admin shortfall. Some of the ways to reduce the workload may be OK, but are not very meaningful when we know that we have discussed them umpteen times, and we know that we will never have consensus on them. And ways to reduce workload alone cannot overcome the increase in per-admin-workload caused by growth, and a depopulating active-admin count. Only a regenerating and growing population of active-admins can cover this shortfall.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I'm not entirely convinced that there is an "admin shortfall", but if there is one, I think you've drastically overestimated it. My suggestions were in line with making admin's work easier, not necessarily because of a shortfall, but because it can be unpleasant duty no matter how many admins there are, so why not make it better?  If there is an admin shortfall, one of the reasons would surely be admin burnout, and making their tasks less onorous would presumably help keep admins from leaving.  (I have other thoughts about the admin process, but this is not the place.) BMK (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure how relevant this is, but I notice that the recent candidates haven't been saying anything about getting administratively involved in food fights between established editors, and most of them don't mention blocks at all; whereas these areas, especially arbitration enforcement, have been said to need more such attention. I guess nobody likes making blocks, which is no surprise considering the distastefulness of the act and the likelihood of being given heck for it by at least one person.  Also, blocking people at the first sign of misbehaviour would be awfully harsh; we should find a middle ground rather than picking one extreme or the other.  Separately, it's been said elsewhere that vandals are more likely than legitimate new users to create accounts if registration were required, but to see who's right we'd have to try disabling registration, and that would be vetoed by the WMF.  <b style="color: #062">e</b><b style="color: #069">k</b><b style="color: #04f">i</b><b style="color: #108">ps</b><b style="color: #60c">39</b> (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@ BMK. You are talking about reducing the workload/strain on admins, and lamenting admin burnouts, but do not seem to accept that there is an admin-shortage. That there are admin-backlogs piling up seems to be uncontested. But we still do not seem to agree. You have forced me to do some math :-( ( I don't like doing math. ) OK. Let's see ( Looking at the column C of the first link for no. of active eds ), , . Doing some rough mental calculations comparing January 2008 and present, it seems number of active admins has gone down by about 40% ( lost ~ 400 admins ) and active ed count has gone down by about 28% and number of articles has roughly doubled in the same period. We had about 1 active admin for 42 active users in 2008, but we have 1 active admin for 51 active users now. That looks like a 25% increase in workload while considering admin/user ratio. The active-admin/article-count ratio is much worse and there is a more than 300% increase in workload per the admin/article ratio ( I know you feel this is irrelevant, but I feel it is relevant). I think there is no statistic which could show that our per-active-admin workload has not increased. All this, and your own comments, seem to show that active-admin workload has increased. The need for lots of new admins is clear IMO. If there is some other/better way of divining increase/decrease in admin workload, please let me know.

@ Ekips39. While I agree with most of what you say, I think blocking is not the only admin area which is under strain. Admins do a lot of things other than blocking, and they also do unblocking, which is probably even messier and time, mind consuming ( than blocking ). Backlogs are piling up in lots of admin-work areas. It does not matter if new admins want to stay away from un/blocking because even if they do other admin tasks, they will be freeing up admins who feel they are up to handling un/blocking issues.OrangesRyellow (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Ill placed humor or badgring?
"If you accepted it with dishonor I'd be a little worried. <span style='font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica'><b style='color:#333333; font-size:small;'>Res</b> Mar 05:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)"
 * This does not belong at the top of somebody's RfA and is being used as cannon fodder against the candidate. There are enough weak oppose !votes already.   --Gaff (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * not cannon fodder. Ammunition. Mixed my metaphors. --Gaff (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Or, you know, it could just be a joke. T  C  N7 JM  20:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say it's just a joke, although many people have accepted noms at RfAs "with honor" before, so it's just a bad joke (as in not funny). Gaff, please, lighten up. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 20:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Will do User:AmaryllisGardener ... I'm generally a lighthearted guy and have a sense of humor in real life!  Just to be clear, though, the reason that I took it down was the oppose reason # 29 reads " the "with honour" was a bit much (and doesn't really make sense).    So it was creating confusion that was detrimental to the candidate in a close call RfA.  There's a time an a place for comments from the peanut gallery. Does that make sense?  Maybe I should not edit before my morning coffee............................. --Gaff (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, someone actually said that? smh -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 01:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Removing that comment from the nomination section was appropriate. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 23:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry all, was trying to do in a little bit of humor with regards to word-choice, forgot that humor gives some people ulcers.
 * If anything the fact that such a comment could be misconstrued for the purpose of opposition is a microcosm of everything that's wrong with this god-awful process. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#333333; font-size:small;">Res</b> Mar 02:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

switch vote
Could someone please switch my vote to oppose with the reason: "Sorry. The Hitler account answer is the straw that broke my camel's back. See Bellerophon above." I don't want to break the internet by switching a vote from a mobile phone. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Bug in xtools
The section in X's edit counter that shows someone's block history doesn't have a heading of "Blocked:"; instead, it says "过错:". The stuff at the top of this page, which seems to have been copied from xtools, does say "Blocked" so maybe it's a problem on my end, but I can't imagine what would be causing it. Apologies for an only indirectly relevant comment, but I think it's worth raising somewhere and I'm not sure where would be better. <b style="color: #062">e</b><b style="color: #069">k</b><b style="color: #04f">i</b><b style="color: #108">ps</b><b style="color: #60c">39</b> (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's a bug - I spotted that and fixed it manually when I posted the stats. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 06:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've always wondered about that, I thought perhaps the person who coded it was trying to express a diplomatic sentiment not easily expressed in English—or perhaps it's an easter egg! <span style="font:small-caps 1.0em Alexandria,serif;color=#00008B">Bellerophon <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#9966CC;">talk to me  15:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 也許他們是中國特有的秘密塊！(Google Translate don't fail me now) -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 15:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Q16
How intriguing that the Hitler question decided it at the last hour. Good way to troll a RFA is to post a question somehow related Hitler or Stalin, perhaps Israel/Palestine, race-baiting or religion. Shit will hit the fan one way or another. Epic. --Pudeo' 13:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Trolling was certainly not my intention and the insinuation fails assumption of good faith. big time. --Gaff (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not fair to call that question "trolling." It was a good question and frankly I'd have expected a different answer under the circumstances, give the concerns that had been raised. Secondly I'm surprised we're still discussing this nomination, given that it has been concluded. Coretheapple (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Godwin's law. Bonus: he used to work for us. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#333333; font-size:small;">Res</b> Mar 02:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Godwin, not Hitler. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#333333; font-size:small;">Res</b> Mar 02:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#333333; font-size:small;">Res</b> Mar 02:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Poor analogy, IMO. This was a formal question based on WP procedure in dealing with the repellent issues admins are sometimes, often faced with. This was no escalating forum or blog thread argument based on increasing frustration and/or ill-will. I see this differently. Regards Irondome (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Our discussing it is useless. But if this admin hopeful comes away thinking he was "trolled," instead of being asked a good question, he will be the poorer for it. Coretheapple (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This is twice now that the implication that my question was trolling has come up in this very public forum. If anyone else cares to continue this discussion, bring it to my talk page or WP:ANI.  Otherwise, this stops here & now.  It is disrespectful to the candidate. --Gaff (talk) 04:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Let's assume good faith here. This discussion should really end. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)