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 {{TAFI}} - 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[edit]
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)
- 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)
semiprotected edit request[edit]
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your 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:
2. copypaste the following text at the bottom of the window, yes, including the time stamp
*This isn't EuroCarGT's first RfA; his first RfA got deleted... by his current nominator[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia%3ARequests+for+adminship%2FEuroCarGT]. Neither of the two cared to mention that fact. I want explanation and a restoration of the original RfA so that we can examine it. 117.139.100.93 (talk) 03:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
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[edit]
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)
- Bbb23, 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. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 01:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Or so if he's on a WikiBreak. --AmaryllisGardener 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, Beyond My Ken.--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. Sportsguy17 (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. –Davey2010Talk 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:
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)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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I've started a discussion on the question of anonymous voting at WT:RfA. Sam Walton (talk) 10:14, 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)
- Allow me to quote from WP:RFA:
- 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)
- Or so if he's on a WikiBreak. --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Bbb23, 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. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 01:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right
And all were in the wrong.
- (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 §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:51, 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)
- (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)
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)
- 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)
Discussion concerning RightCowLeftCoast's neutral[edit]
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. --Biblioworm 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. Snuggums (talk / edits) 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. ekips39 (talk) 02:13, 26 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- Keep in mind, however, that WP:Wikipedia is not about winning. I know that page applies more to disputes, but its sentiment still stands. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:36, 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)
@ 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 ) [1], [2], [3]. 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?[edit]
If you accepted it with dishonor I'd be a little worried. ResMar 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. TCN7JM 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. --AmaryllisGardener 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 --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:39, 3 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)
- 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. --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Removing that comment from the nomination section was appropriate. –xenotalk 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. ResMar 02:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
switch vote[edit]
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[edit]
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. ekips39 (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- No, it's a bug - I spotted that and fixed it manually when I posted the stats. — 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! Bellerophon 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) --AmaryllisGardener talk 15:32, 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! Bellerophon talk to me 15:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Q16[edit]
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. ResMar 02:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Godwin, not Hitler. ResMar 02:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think. ResMar 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)
- Godwin, not Hitler. ResMar 02:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Godwin's law. Bonus: he used to work for us. ResMar 02:15, 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)