The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

EuroCarGT[edit]

Final (79/41/12). Closed as no consensus by WJBscribe at 10:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

EuroCarGT (talk · contribs) – I'm very pleased to present EuroCarGT for adminship. EuroCar has done so much on Wikipedia in his nearly three years here that it's difficult to know where to start with this nomination. On his user page, EuroCar says that he does a lot of gnomish work, but on a closer inspection of his edits I found quite a lot of content work. For example, there are his almost 100 edits to December 2013 North American ice storm, and his new articles, which I invite you all to take a look through.

He is also a GA reviewer, including at Talk:Ontario Highway 25/GA1, Talk:Summit Series/GA1, Talk:Jennifer Lopez/GA1, and Talk:Ontario Highway 64/GA1. Plus, he helped to bring Steak to GA status as part of his work with today's articles for improvement (always good to find an article you can really sink your teeth into),[1] and he has DYKs for Solar activity and Animatronics through the same project. His reviewing also extends to articles for creation, where for example, he received this barnstar for reviewing 95 articles in the March 2014 backlog drive.

Aside from content, he is also active in content-supporting roles. There is his work at the Graphics Lab, where he has amassed 140 edits, and at the Teahouse, where he has 119. He's also an OTRS member. On the administrative side of things, I found that he has a lot of experience in recent changes patrol, especially towards the start of his Wikipedia career. He has been a prolific Huggler, with over 9000 edits; he has over 2000 STiki edits, placing him at no. 120 on the leaderboard; and he has 264 edits to AIV as well.

He also has significant experience in deletion, most notably in his CSD log, which at last count had a very impressive 1009 edits. There weren't any problems with any of the tags that I spot-checked. I also saw plenty of intelligent AfD comments after looking through some of the 173 AfD discussions that he has participated in.

Perhaps the most impressive of all, though, is that even after looking through hundreds of his edits and all of his talk page archives, I couldn't find any evidence of drama. Instead, the picture I see is that of a helpful, level-headed editor that likes to help get things done. I hope you will join me in supporting his candidacy for adminship. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Apologies to any vegetarians reading this...
Extended content
:::But let's not forget about yummy lasagna and cheese manicotti and of course who doesn't love spicy vegetarian teriyaki stir fry? —Soap— 14:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Soap: What is this? Is this a neutral !vote? This section is causing formatting issue. I say you remove it Jim Carter 14:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a footnote to Steak in the nom. Formatting looks OK to me in Monobook. Peridon (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks odd from my phone. @Peridon: Did you noticed that Cyberbot is counting this as a neutral !vote? Jim Carter 15:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Can it go under the nom, or is it fixed down here? Peridon (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks Mr. Stradivarius, I accept this kind nomination with honor. ///EuroCarGT 00:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I plan on using the tools on the areas that I've have experience and familiarity with, I intent to work on speedy deletion, especially at the backlogged CAT:CSD, being a helping hand over at user intervention noticeboards such as WP:AIV (vandalism), WP:UAA (usernames), WP:RFPP (page protection) and Wikipedia administrator attention-related pages due to my active contributions towards recent changes and new page patrolling. WP:MFD is often quite lengthy, I will assist in closing MFD discussions. As someone who has a keen interest in reducing spam, I will continue intervening with spam with help of the tools. Additionally, helping out in reducing media copyrights. Towards the file namespace, I intent to delete previous/orphaned non-free image revisions.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Echoing Mr. Stradivarius' nomination statement. Overall, I am a helper in any situation, on Wikipedia I enjoy helping and being a positive contributor towards this project. Content-wise as Mr. Stradivarius stated, I worked on expanding December 2013 North American ice storm from just a little article. I created several articles and been a helping hand at several other pages. I enjoy helping and welcoming others, no matter if it is a new user or an experience user, being a host at Teahouse helping out users and the community with other great user/hosts, I've felt connected, happy and friendly. I also enjoy working with requests over at graphics lab, no matter which file format, I will lend a helping hand and attempt to improve such requested image. Being one of the members of Today’s Article for Improvement, I've collaborated with a great team, working on various article topics to improve articles, which is splendid and delightful.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: As like every Wikipedia user, no one is perfect. I have been in some situations where it gets heated, however with just a good talk, then opening up a civil discussion and getting the best possible solution is the best way to resolve something. To the most, I try to be as positive as possible, no matter what the situation is, it helps me get the most of the importance of communication. In all situations, I tend to always remain calm and attempt not to escalate the situation.
Additional question from Cryptic
4. So you're working through a 90-page backlog at CAT:SPAM and come across an article, let's say "Jimbo's Restaurant", created by User:Jimbo's Restaurant, who has no contributions unrelated to this article. It's got ((db-a7)) and ((db-g11)) attached, and it irreparably qualifies for both. The only thing unusual about it is that it has a section containing the restaurant's entire menu, complete with twenty-something images of nearly featured picture quality, uploaded on commons by c:User:Jimbo's Restaurant with ((CC-BY-SA-3.0)) stuck to them. What actions do you take?
A: First I would be examining the article, reviewing the content to see if it does meet what the speedy deletion tag states. In this situation, we got both A7 and G11, so I would see if the content does not or does shows indication of importance and that it is or isn't promotional, then I would go ahead and either keep or delete the page. Towards the username, as per the username policy, usernames which are promotional and contributes in a promotional manner in related promotional articles, can be blocked. I would give a user warning about having a promotional username, then keep an eye out if they do want to change there username, if the user continues to adding promotional edits, I will block the user under ((Uw-spamublock)). Towards the restaurant's entire menu being uploaded on Commons, I would make sure that it meets Commons' project scope, advertising and self-promotional content is not allowed, therefore I would nominate it for deletion at Commons.
Clarifying, since my phrasing was a bit, ahem, cryptic. Assume the images are all similar to this. They're obviously professionally taken and previously published by the restaurant, to the point where we'd usually want OTRS confirmation of the license release. Some might have a restaurant logo, but as in that pumpkin pie image, it's minimal and in the background. How would that change your actions as an enwiki admin, if at all? —Cryptic 16:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My actions regarding will still stay the same regarding the user and article. Now towards the updated question about the restaurant menu, if it is minimal than it is fine, similar to the ones over at Menu, as for the logo if it is highly visible that it does not meet c:Commons:De minimis, than again we need to get permission from OTRS on that file to ensure that they agree to publish the work under a free license.
Additional questions from User:B
5. Last month, you cleaned up File:Gerakan Pramuka East Timor.png per a request at the graphics lab. Looking at this image and how it is presently used in the article, is this an appropriate use of a non-free image? Why or why not? --B (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A: Trying my best, I couldn't find relevant image policies regarding transparent non-free images. Other than the visual improvements, it's still the same image, just with the background removed and transparent. For this image, I compressed the image while removing irrelevant areas to keep the image as minimal as possible, while still being in par with NFCC and of low quality, therefore it is an appropriate use of a non-free image.
To clarify, there is not (and I apologize if my question was worded confusingly and it seemed that I was trying to say that there was) a policy regarding transparency of non-free images. The purpose of my question was to seek an evaluation of the image in its entirety as it is used in the article presently and whether that use qualifies according to our rules, not just the change that you made to it. --B (talk) 11:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Answer to both A & B — Presently, it is fine. Non-free images may be updated at any time, the number one goal is to get the subject of the article to be best illustrated as possible, while respecting the non-free image policies of keeping it as minimal as possible, as well as other rules.
6. Same question for File:NYCRR binder.png, which you uploaded in November 2014. Is this an appropriate use of a non-free image? Why or why not? --B (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A: For this image, the original size is 6KB and the uploaded size is 182 KB which means it was not compressed by any means. As stated above, I removed sections of this image to keep the image as minimal as possible in accordance to the NFCC, so it is an appropriate use of a non-free image.
Additional questions from 75.108.15.42 (talk)
7. Why was half your user page's history revision deleted? What are you hiding?
A: Just hiding personal information, I had my personal email address in my userpage, kept getting frequent spam messages. Once that was removed, I made a Wikipedia-related email.
8. Describe in your own words what you think "fair use" means on English Wikipedia. How does our definition of the phrase differ from the dictionary definition, if at all? Also, what do you think about images getting moved from Wikipedia to Commons without a local copy being left behind? Is it a good or a bad thing? Would you be willing to do it if asked to?
A: For the fair use, the best definition I could make out of my head would be allowing it to be use for educational, non-profit, news reporting, criticism, parody and satire purposes, while respecting copyright laws and ensuring that the original source is listed. About images getting moved from Wikipedia to Commons without a local copy being left behind, it depends on the situation, for most images, I think it is perfectly fine to have them moved to Commons, and having the local-copies deleted, however in situations where there maybe a copyright issue, for example, in some countries, they believe some images to be non-free, a good example would an old artwork from say 80 years ago which is PD in the United States, but may not be PD in other coutnries, therefore keeping a local copy is ideal in this situation. As I stated before, I will lend a helping hand in any place, so I am open to helping out.
Additional question from Epicgenius
9. A vandalism or test edit comes up in the recent changes, related changes, or watchlist. You revert it. What will you do next if the editor is:
A:
In life communication is key, once after reverting, I will head over to the user's contribution page, review any edits, then go to the user's talk page and look for any recent user warnings, if the user has received the appropriate 4 levels of warning, then I will temp. block the user for vandalism. If not, then give them a warning.
An IP address is quite difficult because an IP address could be either static or dynamic addresses, ISP's usually share IP addresses once a while, so a anon. user making good faith edits say in September 2014, can today (February 2015) be connected to some other person making bad-faith edits. As always, it is ideal to check both; the user contributions and user talk page to see if they received sufficient recent user warnings, if not then give them a warning and keep an eye out on them.
Similar to the IP editor with no edits other than that vandalism or test edits, I would review the user's contributions, check there user talk page for any warnings, if not then give them a warning. Then keep an eye out for any progress that the user makes. If the user had received the 4 sufficient recent user warnings, the I will block the account under a WP:VOA summary.
We are all equal, no matter what user group we are in, as always give them a warning, and if they do have the sufficient user warnings, then I will block the account.
As like before, give them a warning, see if they have any recent user warnings, keep an eye out for unusual account behaviors as the account maybe compromised. In situations like this when good faith editors have some type of unusual account behavior, the user needs to be blocked until the situation is clearly resolved.
Additional question from Iaritmioawp
10. Consider the following hypothetical scenario which will test your understanding of WP:CONSENSUS. Five editors take part in a discussion. Four of them argue in favor of outcome A, one of them argues in favor of outcome B. The arguments of the advocates of outcome A are weak and are easily refuted by the one editor who argues in favor of outcome B. The one editor who argues in favor of outcome B offers numerous policy-, guideline-, and common-sense-based arguments, none of which are refuted. You are the administrator whose role is to formally close the discussion. What is the outcome of the debate, A or B?
A: We should always remember that in a discussion, no matter what the venue is, it isn't much about the numbers, but the rationale they have included. It is important that a consensus is not a majority vote. In this situation, we have 5 parties, 4 argues in favor of A, 1 argues in favor of B. The first thing anyone should do when closing a discussion should always read and review the discussion, look at all the rationales and see if it is a strong point, in this situation, the 1 (B person) voter with the strong argument will be the outcome that I would choose, because it is strongly worded, backed by policies and has a strong argument to establish that importance in that discussion. Like the phrase says: "quality over quantity".
Additional questions from Ritchie333
11. A brand new user creates an article, whose content is entirely "a meal you can shake hands with in the dark is a battered ornaments record". What do you do?
A: At first is review the content, you will need to establish if it's notable, cited by reliable sources and overall is covered well. Looking at the content, this maybe a phrase or slogan that someone said, that might be important to note and maybe notable. Overall, you will need to wait for the user to build up on an article, probably wait half an hour to an hour and see if any improvements come up and the decide whether it may meet criteria for speedy deletion as a short article. You should never judge an article, by its content, it may seem silly, but the best thing to do is wait and see.
12. A creator of an article you speedy deleted as A7 writes to your page saying, "Sir, I beg to implore you to restore my article on professor kahn he is a very important member of the community and holds several degress, please tell me what to do -- preceding unsigned comment added by confusednewbie (talk)". The original article was completely unsourced and mentioned no university or the word "professor". What do you do?
A: Before, anyone deletes an article, you should always review the content, you just don't start mashing the delete button cause you feel like it. Check if the subject of the article meets importance and overall is sourced and neutral especially on a BLP. Thereafter, once I delete the article and a user requests on my talk page to restore the article, I would list the issues that the article had definitely help the user out by welcoming the user, listing some links to help out users regarding content and overall give the user a hand if he wants to create a article again.
Clarifying, my answer. When I say check, I mean search the subject for notability. I always perform a web search on a subject or content before doing anything relating to deletion, no matter if its AfD, MfD and etc., this helps me get a better sense of the subject and the content. Also when I mean to "wait and see", I mean not to bite the newcomers as they recently just created the article, I hope that made a better sense on my comments.
One specific incident I had in mind when asking this question was this. DGG's userpage has more information about how to apply notability of academics. I appreciate questions can't correlate perfectly with reality, but the basic scenario here was to frame an article that superficially looked like an A7, but on closer communication with the author revealed the possibility of meeting a specific notability criteria such as WP:PROF. If you work on CSD, you'll need to be familiar with this, as fully tenured academics often produce notable work contributing to the sum of human knowledge, but are not widely known, leading to inexperienced NPPers putting them up for deletion. Without this understanding, you run the risk of accidentally deleting notable people without realising. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
13. What is your opinion of the events in User talk:Charliallpress?
A: This is more of an observation as I don't like criticizing users. It seems like a new user, came to Wikipedia to create an article on a charitable organization. A NPP said that the page meets G11, and has placed several warnings to the user which may have distressed the user. You and several other users come in and helped out the user content wise and talk page wise. At the end of the day, communication is key.
Additional question from SNUGGUMS
14. If ever accused of abusing your admin tools, how would you respond?
A: Good question. Depends on the scenario, if a user states that I have abused an admin tool such as deleting an article that meets criteria for speedy deletion, I would link to some policies and content pages in a message to help the user understand the action(s) taken as well as to help clarify the deletion. Another scenario would be say; wrongfully blocking a user, which is very serious concern. In this scenario, consensus is the answer to this. If any user, has an issue or concern of any of my administrative actions, I am responsible and accountable for my actions and I am open to recall, additionally open to a community discussion at AN/I, regarding the action taken and won't have any issue being desysoped.
Additional question from Esquivalience
15. You revert vandalism from an editor with no edits other than that vandalizing edit. From the first three levels of the ((uw-vandalism)) warning, how do you decide which one to issue to that editor for that single vandalizing edit?
A: From those first three warning templates, I would choose ((uw-vandalism1)) along with a welcome template, as its the only edit that the user has made.
Unfortunately, the question was not clear to me, out of the limited options available in the question, this was the answer I could produce. I know that it is dependent on the scenario.
Additional question from Gaff
16. Can you elaborate on question 15? Perhaps Esquivalience might comment if possible, since said editor is now in support of your RfA. Your answer to Q15 is being given as a reason to oppose. The question Q15 is vague. If the one vandalism edit was from User:HitlerIsTheMan to the article on Anne Frank, would you respond the same as if it was from User:ILoveHelloKitty on the article Hello Kitty? How so? Would it depend on the content of the vandalism ? --Gaff (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment) See Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warnings and Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings/Usage and layout#Levels: level one is for when good faith should be assumed, level two is neutral, and level three is for when good faith cannot be assumed. It depends on the severity of the vandalism. I'm asking the candidate what warning to give based on that vandalizing edit. Esquivalience t 21:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A: Whenever I spot clear vandalism, I do my best to revert it at all cases. Towards, the warning part, it will be dependent on the content of the vandalism, as always if the user is new and echoing what Esquivalience said, there will be times where you will need to use different warning templates towards the editor. If User:HitlerIsTheMan wrote on Anne Frank: Anne Frank is a worthless pile of rubbish and is not a good person, she doesn't deserve anything special and did not deserve to live. as his or her first edit, I would add a welcome template, as well as a BLPvandalism-related warning NB- amended by EuroCarGT at 03:07 (UTC) (additionally the username), however if User:ILoveHelloKitty wrote on the article Hello Kitty: 420 blazzzze it up, roll up dawg, Hello Kitty is da real kitty thang, then I would be neutral and add both a welcome template as well as a level two vandalism template.
Additional question from SD0001
17. How do you view the fact that an adminship is granted on an indefinite basis?
A:

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Strong support, I've been waiting a long time for this! Euro is kind, helpful, and has good judgement, which are the qualities we need in admins. I've known Euro since October 2013 when I gave him a counter-vandalism barnstar (I was secretly fed up with him beating me to reverts! Just kidding :P) and we've kept in touch since then. Last November, I was suffering from WikiStress, and Euro was kind enough to leave me a long encouraging message to help me through it. We need more people like Euro on Wikipedia. Again, SUPPORT! :D --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Absolutely strongest support. Known them and is the kind of editor we want for sysopship. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I don't quite want to do this, but some of the opposes have valid points and editors I hold in high regard seem to be opposing. Will definitely not be opposing, simply striking this. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC) Un-strike, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 07:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as nominator. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Seems to meet my criteria, convincing nom, looks good to me! Swarm X 03:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Support. It looks like this user meets all of my basic expectations. I would like to see more CSD nominations of actual articles rather than just userpages, but that's not too big of an issue seeing that he has experience in other admin areas. Good luck! --Biblioworm 03:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Very, very strong oppose. (Nah, just kidding. ) I have encountered Euro in anti-vandalism and other places. He is a competent candidate for adminship and I think he will use the tools well in anti-vandalism. His work to articles doesn't include a particularly long list of FAs, GAs, or DYKs, but I don't think that's important. Also, Euro doesn't spend half his free time on Wikipedia as some other editors may do, so he's probably best suited for adminship, given that he isn't a Wikipediholic right now. :) Epic Genius (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Rschen7754 04:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Definitely: Excellent candidate. No reason to think that they will misuse admin tools. --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Why not? Jianhui67 T★C 05:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong oppose - Never heard of him..Ṫ Ḧ the joy of the LORDmy strength 05:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The candidate's user page has a userbox that says "This user loves Lamborghini". The next user box says "This user owns a Honda Accord". I'm sorry to hear that. Now, to the point. I have done a detailed review of various aspects of the candidate's editing history. The candidate isn't Wikipedia's greatest ever editor. Steak, for example, is an article that seems fine for what it does say, but is quite deficient for what it does not. And I haven't found any evidence of the candidate really engaging in difficult editorial debates, showing his chops in relation to fundamental and contentious questions of Wikipedia policy. I'd love to link to examples of particularly prescient AfD contributions or input into editing disputes, but couldn't find any. The nominator says "most impressive of all ... I couldn't find any evidence of drama." I disagree with the premise of this statement. Competence is the most important characteristic in an admin candidate. Drama on Wikipedia is often unavoidable so it is the absence of it in a candidate's history that tends to make me nervous. But, in this case, after a detailed review, I have not found any real evidence of cluelessness. That outweighs my concerns and leads me to the (at this time) lone oppose, which is on the basis of a low monthly edit frequency. That's fine with me. I am far less nervous about casual editors, with a satisfying and busy off-wiki life, getting the administrative tools than the 110-hours-a-week editors. Overall, on balance, the candidate's mopping would be a positive. The chances of this going wrong are not high. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that it is incumbent on early !voters to re-visit an RfA when it is late and in the red zone. I'm staying here. My support was a very hesitant one. Weak answers to the questions have borne that hesitancy out. But the answers aren't weak enough. In Q15 for example, the weakness was always in the breadth and open-endedness of the question, and the candidate should not be assigned too much for giving an admittedly insufficient answer. Nonetheless, and I'm sorry to be blunt, but if this passes, it will probably be the weakest candidature to pass in some time. And in that time, far stronger candidates (Thomas.W, Dirtlawyer, and yes, myself) have failed. But two things sway me to support. The first is that asking the candidate to come back in six months or a year is risky: we could lose six months to a year of competent administrative assistance. The second is that, as I said above, the chances of this going wrong are not high. I suspect that the candidate has assiduously avoided controversy and difficulty to pass an RfA. I trust that the same attitude will be brought to his administrative duties and that he will beaver away capably in non-difficult areas. Good luck. This week cannot have been easy. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to oppose - see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/EuroCarGT#switch vote —Cryptic 01:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Good Candidate and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Seen him around a lot. Seems to know what's what. As to badge collecting, it's Catch 22, isn't it? You don't collect any and you're too inexperienced. Collect a few and you're just a collector. My main concern is that he doesn't seem certain whether he's human or artificial. 8-) Peridon (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - Really good all rounder, I'd say. As far as I'm concerned, there is no reason not to trust this user. Good work. Orphan Wiki 14:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support giving this user the tools is probably in the best interests of Wikipedia. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC) moved to oppose[reply]
  13. Support Sure. Eurodyne (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I agree that Steak is not a good advert for the candidate's ability to create decent articles - it may be listed as a GA, but hovers around Start and C class for content and presentation; and I assume listing Talk:Jennifer Lopez/GA1 as an example of candidate's GA reviewing ability was a mistake, given that no reviewing was done for that article. However, EuroCarGT appears to take Wikipedia seriously, and I'm not one of those who feel that ability to create decent article or take part in GA reviews is a necessary requirement of admins - it helps inform, but is not essential. Lack of drama is a positive; while the point is taken that Wiki editing can be stressful, and there may be pressure at times, any user who can deal with the pressure without creating drama is a good user. EuroCarGT appears solid and well meaning and doesn't over-react. Those are positive qualities in an admin. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak support – but morally strong support – Just over 100 edits in a month is rather low for an aspiring admin. Next, I have an admittedly slight distrust of the non-WMF "Test Wiki" users, seemingly only there to play with admin tools, but EuroCarGT hasn't edited there in a year – and in my opinion off-enwiki activity isn't fair to judge on anyway. It just suggests a "hat-collecting" mentality is all. Lastly, I have had reason to believe he will be too quick with the block button. That was also quite a while ago, and most admins do learn on the job.
    All that being said, I am hugely impressed by his work with new users. I think that's very important, and we have far too few of these types of admins. I also think that when EuroCarGT is actually online, they will get some real work done with the tools, which we also have few too few of (sysops that actually do sysop things). Tag on his clear understanding of policy and guidelines, cooperative demeanor, and just being a nice guy in general, and I believe you have my support. A net-positive to say the least. Good luck — MusikAnimal talk 17:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)    [reply]
  15. +1 TCN7JM 17:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And an extra thank you for doing those Ontario highway GA reviews last year. The GAN queue for road articles has been pretty slow recently, and most of the reviews are done within the project. People like you from outside the project reviewing them helps to speed up the queue, while also making sure the articles make sense to people who aren't as knowledgeable on roads. TCN7JM 16:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Hell Yes – Too damn many "do nothing" admins around here and anyone who's not going to burn the place down would be a net plus. I understand if he's gotten frustrated and burnt out and doesn't edit as much as he used to. Maybe this will get him enthused again. Mojoworker (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - Everytime EuroCarGT's name pops up It's always him helping someone somewhere on here, I don't think I've ever seen him get pissed off either even when some do push his patience!, Excellent candidate, No issues whatsoever!, Good luck :) –Davey2010Talk 21:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the opposes have some very good points and If I'm being completely honest I've been debating on whether to move or not.... But I'm gonna take a risk and carry on supporting! - Just don't let me down! :), Anyway good luck :) –Davey2010Talk 03:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support An issue raised below is the relatively low rate of editing. If you looks at EuroCarGT's contributions, you will see that they are spread out during a month and the average time difference between edits is not short. This indicates to me an editor who is regularly contributing to Wikipedia and making thoughtful edits and/or performing tasks that take time. --I am One of Many (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, I see no reason why not (and can't fault anyone who writes about steak!) Editcountitis is a poor reason to oppose. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  20. Oppose, because they were blocked in August 2014 for the most horrendous crime anyone can commit on Wikipedia. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 00:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is this in the support section? I had to do research to figure out the situation. That block was in effect for less than 1 minute, with the admin doing the block giving a reason of "oops". See block here --Gaff (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sportsguy17 is joking. I've seen editors do things like this a few times, not that uncommon. --AmaryllisGardener talk 00:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for my rather cliché and pathetic attempt at some sarcastic humor . At any rate, I do indeed support this candidate. Sorry for the confusion. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 00:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I get it, it was just that your edit crashed into mine as an edit conflict. I thought you were sincerely opposing based on faulty information, so I was just getting ready to fire off some sort of defense... There are so many ridiculous opposes at RfA, that this would not be too far off. --Gaff (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong support I've had very positive interactions with EuroCarGT. This editor contributes a lot in terms of illustrations and map making, which is time consuming work that does not make your edit count go up. The only oppose is based on a recent decreased in activity. EuroCarGT is a student, with real-life responsibilities that might cut into time on Wikipedia. However, this is not a weakness, in fact a very important features that is likely more predictive for maintaining a long-term sustainable approach to Wikipedia. It is worth noting that EurocatGT requested that the nomination for this RfA be delayed briefly due to these school commitments. This is a sign of maturity, not instability or lack of motivation. --Gaff (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gaff: It is worth noting that EurocatGT requested... Meow? --AmaryllisGardener talk 00:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Guess my reasoning isn't clear on that... There has been a discussion on EurocatGT talk page encouraging an RfA for a while. EurocatGT seemed reluctant to have the RfA just now, since this petty (IMHO) reason to oppose (lack of recent activity) might come up. That to me signifies maturity. Reluctant admins are probably the best suited for the job. --Gaff (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gaff: I think you missed the point. The username is EuroCarGT, not EurocatGT. ;) --Biblioworm 01:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I guess we can't have European cats driving racecars, though. :) Epic Genius (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Toonces takes Torino?? --Gaff (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to see that happen... Epic Genius (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather than pick apart the two most recent oppose votes below, I will here reiterate (one more time) my support and expand on my rationale. The answers, which are the source of criticism below, to the questions seem reasonable and appropriate. Aspiring and new admins should avoid controversial or complicated CSD issues and leave them for more experienced admins. This does not mean that they are not able to contribute with the overall burden of labor, by offloading work on less controversial backlogs. In addition, a "wait and see" approach is not at all unreasonable in dealing with newly created short articles put up by new editors. With few exceptions, there need be no rush to delete something unless it is a blatant personal attack, or copyvio. --Gaff (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, no major issues here. Nakon 01:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Full SupportOne of the most level headed, neutral minded and socially adept candidates I have seen. Best !OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Good experience and interactions in a wide range of topics. I am not concerned about the candidate's level of activity because some of the work EuroCarGT has done takes time just to produce a few edits and having real life take precedence over Wikipedia activities at times is understandable. More importantly, with a good record, any help EuroCarGT gives in to administrative areas should be a net positive. Donner60 (talk) 02:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support as nominator. Good candidate. --►Cekli829 05:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I thought I was the nominator! ;) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support per nom. INeverCry 06:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Editor seems highly aware and conscious about policy. And they seem very competent, nice, and an overall big plus to the project. I am unphased by a low recent edit count and I don't think it's really connected to the question trustworthiness. If anything, the moral boost from a pass may spur on a new wave of contributions. I have yet to notice any real drawbacks. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - no concerns, especially as the opposes only seem to be 'he isn't online very often' - oh no, somebody who has a life outside of the Internet! GiantSnowman 13:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong suuuuuuuppppoooorrrrttt Finally finally finally! yes yes yes. I encourage this user to run, he finally did it.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 14:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Suppose - He'll be a very good admin, I suppose. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Net positive, with plenty of clue. Le clue, c'est tout. Miniapolis 14:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support No concerns. I recognize some legitimate concerns but BMK but the activity issue does not increase my distrust of this user based upon their logged history. As for Andrew D's concerns, I find them very unconvincing, easily placing my !vote here. Mkdwtalk 16:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Moved to neutral. Mkdwtalk 22:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]
  31. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - nomination is strong. Weak content history (if it indeed is weak, I'm not so sure) is not a barrier to adminship for me. Excellent candidate for the mop. Ivanvector (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC) moved to neutral, see below Ivanvector (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support I expect this candidate to do a good job. I find the rational of oppose #1 and #2(the only that exist at this time) to be unconvincing. I don't think you need to be a great article writer to be an admin and I don't think you need a minimum amount of edits per month to be competent. Chillum 16:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note Since I posted this there were several new opposes. While they make some solid points about competence I think this candidate will know to ask for help when in doubt. I was not fully versed in all admin tasks when I became an admin, there is always a learning curve. Chillum 00:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - We need more admins, and this candidate seems perfectly trustworthy. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - Brings another non-USA administrator into the mix; Why no Canadian Wikipedia?   Bfpage |leave a message  17:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe this is "Worldwide Wikipedia in the English Language", not American Wikipedia - otherwise I want UK Wikipedia... :-) Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - No concerns at all. I've seen him helping out in many areas at WP. Tony Tan98 · talk 18:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Seen him around plenty. He'll do great. Kurtis (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. What's not to like? - Dank (push to talk) 20:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Seems a sensible editor and nothing of any concern has been brought up to make me oppose. Sam Walton (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support The opposes do not cut it for me. Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Euro is one of the editors that I run into consistently when patrolling CSD and I've seen their good work. Very happy to see this RFA finally materializing. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - Good, solid RfA candidate, with plenty of experience and sound participation in CSD and AfDs. When I'm a relatively late voter, I always like to read the "oppose" and "neutral" comments before registering my support. Among the neutrals, Snuggums and RCLC's comments about low-editing frequency caught my eye; however, an examination of the candidate's recent record shows that he averaged 550 edits per month during 2014. That's plenty. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Per comments by Mkativerata and SarekOfVulcan, I am reiterating my support in light of the closeness of this RfA. No RfA candidate can reasonably be expected to know and understand all guidelines and policies in depth before becoming an admin, and it is clear that some candidates receive wholly different levels of scrutiny. I am also inherently skeptical of pile-on oppose !votes. This is a good candidate. With the cautionary admonition "to go slow and be careful with the tools," I continue to endorse this candidate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - My review of the candidate reveals a solid editor, who will most certainly be a net positive for Wikipedia. I'm worried about their participation in CSD (see their CSD log; most nominations are for user pages rather than article pages, I would have like to see more article tagging) but since most new admins learn on the job, I'm not too worried. The user's level of editing do not worry me either. If it passes: have fun, and serve us well. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Stephen 04:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Only because of this. Jim Carter 05:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Removing humorous !vote (See below) Jim Carter 08:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jim Carter: I don't understand your !vote. Was that link supposed to point elsewhere? Altamel (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC) For those voters who are as gullible as I am, read his talk page first. Altamel (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Seen him around on multiple occasions. No drama or lack of clue encountered. Respected nominator. Good luck!  Philg88 ♦talk 07:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support- no concerns here. Reyk YO! 11:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - even if, per below, answers to some questions aren't perfect. Or editing history is sub-optimal in some areas. While utterly perfect administrators are nice to have around, there is an alarming dearth of them. Therefore, I'm happy to support a trusted volunteer with good track record, good policy knowledge who does not generate drama. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - we need more gnomish admins with good content-adding abilities. Green Giant (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support I don't see anything here that makes me think the tools are going to be misused. Davewild (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Looks like a great candidate.--TMD Talk Page. 23:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Not an easy decision because in spite of the candidate meeting my criteria and my not having found anything egregious in the candidate's history, I could obviously not ignore the reasonable oppose !votes. However, on balance, I still find nothing sufficiently compelling for me to oppose or even go nuetral. The candidate has my confidence with the caveat they tread carefully when they get the mop and ask, always ask for advice, before risking anything contentious. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, don't see anything wrong here. Tavix |  Talk  01:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC) I have to strike my support. There have been a few issues that arose since my vote that swayed me in the opposite direction. His inactivity, grammar problems, and answers to a few questions (especially Q16) makes me question his abilities as admin. Tavix |  Talk  02:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - To be honest, one of the weakest supports in recent memory, but a support nonetheless. The opposers bring up perfectly rational and reasonable arguments (thank you!) but imperfection isn't sufficient to disqualify for me. I'm kind of in the same camp as Kudpung on this one and agree with his advice. I've seen him around, he seems perfectly sane and all, and think that he would be a net positive, flaws and all. I do worry that this is a case of getting a bit bored with Wikipedia, so wanting the mop to do something different (as evidenced by BMK's notes) but that isn't necessarily a bad thing, it is just not a desirable thing by itself. In the end, he has enough experience and I don't sense any evil intent or bad judgement, so it is worth the risk. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support The content creation and activity issues do not concern me, though a few of the other concerns do. On balance, however, I have to support - the candidate appears sane and the areas he appears to be weak in are not among those he stated he will primarily focus on. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 02:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Any candidate who can make a person altogether abandon their "absolutely strongest" opinion is somebody I'd like to see as an admin. – Juliancolton | Talk 05:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support My plan was to only make a single comment at ANI and then never log into this account again but after seeing this RfA - I'll have to make one more exception to my retirement. Full fledged support.--v/r - TP 06:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support --DHeyward (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Having another administrator can't be a bad thing, and this user appears to be sufficiently trustworthy for the role. Rcsprinter123 (interact) @ 00:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  56. SupportBobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 02:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support despite underwhelming answers to the questions. But I think we really need more administrators and I trust that EuroCarGT will not intentionally break the wiki. All in all, I believe his sysoping would be a net positive. Pichpich (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support any editor that can get TParis to support out of retirement is good enough for me. In all seriousness, I have long been impressed by his or her work. Go Phightins! 03:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support I see no reason why not. Adminship is not a big deal. —Celestianpower háblame 12:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support We need admins. EuroCarGT knows WP well enough to use the tools, and seems highly unlikely to abuse them. FourViolas (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support I trust you. Putting steak in the nom was a bad idea, but not your fault. That was the only thing bothering me even having read all the oppose votes. —Soap— 19:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'm still supporting despite your answering a question 4 hours before the scheduled endtime of the RFA in a way that caused the RFA to suddenly switch from likely passing to failing. You were being honest and I don't think your answer is a good one but I'd rather support someone who is honest and wrong than someone who chooses to simply ignore the question in the hopes that no one will notice. And I think if you had ignored the question, your RFA would probably still be within the passing percentage now. —Soap— 05:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. The candidate may not have the same level of understanding of the complexities of copyright etc as his interrogators and may have little GA etc work but IMO neither is a necessary pre-requisite for holding a mop. DexDor (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support I do not see any significant actual mistakes in applying deletion policy. An article about an individual which doesn't mention the factors that might make for significance is very likely to be speedy deleted by almost any admin. The faulty CSD nomination linked in Q12 that ignoredWP:PROF was not by EuroCarGT, but by another editor. The example given in Q11 would normally be deleted as nonsense, as there does to seem to be anything to search for. In fact, actual searching the entire phrase in google shows it an actual recording, tho probably not a notable one-- but this is so unlikely that in a normal context I might not have searched. The candidate is quite right that apparently insufficient articles should to be deleted as A7immediately, tho most of us would be more likely to wait 10 minutes than half an hour. It's true that the answers do not explain things clearly. I go more by the actual record. And the opposes based on editing quality are irrelevant -- the candidate has edited enough hot recognize the problems editors have, and that's all that is needed. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Dug through talk page archives and edit history. Always civil and helpful; nothing to disqualify. Not perfect but everyone makes mistakes and I'm sure EuroCarGT will make some. I also judge that he will correct them quickly, learn from them and be a net positive as a sysop. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 18:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support, based on obvious understanding of policy on Q11. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 00:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support The opposes are quite reasonable, and I agree that his answers to the questions are not really clear. But as I can see no problem with his CSD and AFD logs. I assume he understands our deletion policies and there is no evidence of lack of judgement. On the first look he doesn't really strike as admin material but there is no big issue I can see; so supporting. Also, Net positive. Jim Carter 08:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support He seems fine. Sure, he does not walk on water (which seems to be the standard some are requiring these days) but the shortage of admins here threatens the integrity of the project and I forsee no problems giving EuroCarGT the mop. Marteau (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support First off, I want to agree strongly with some of my NFC comrades in the Oppose section re Question 6: File:NYCRR_binder.png is a really poor use of a non-free image, and I'll probably nominate it for deletion myself if I remember to get around to it after this RFA ends. That said, while it's tempting to think that admins should know better, let's remember that adminship is no big deal. So this candidate is a little sketchy on WP:NFC; so what? They're also here for the right reasons, willing to learn, and they seem unlikely to set anything on fire. EuroCarGT has my support. HiDrNick! 15:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support A nice editor who has made a lot of useful contributions here and has helped in many different areas of of the project. Clearly a net positive. We all make mistakes sometimes, and EuroCarGT is no different as he learns from them. One of the most important thing is trust, and he is clearly a trusted and good editor. TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. I had no particular opinion here and was going to sit this one out, but since it's looking pretty borderline I'll go ahead and comment. OK, the answers to the questions aren't all great (though the questions themselves aren't all great either). Being a good admin isn't about answering hypothetical questions. EuroCarGT seems friendly, pleasant, collaborative, calm, and clueful, all of which are more important than quoting policy by chapter and verse. No reason to think he won't be cautious starting out. Recommend staying away from thorny NFCC issues, though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Retracting. I thought carefully about this and came down on the "no big deal" side. And I imagine the fateful "Hitler answer" was a one-off misjudgment motivated by the stress of a last-minute response on a borderline RfA, and it's a bit sad to see a borderline case become a likely failure due to a single error. But that's a serious unforced error. He does mention the username, but parenthetically, as if it's a minor problem - and proposes to welcome the user and add, of all things, a BLP warning? I wasn't convinced by opposers who characterized the candidate as too by-the-book or too soft - the subtleties of judgment are easier to develop when making real decisions about real examples than when responding to contextless hypotheticals - and I appreciate that one of his skills is in being friendly and patient with new users. But. It doesn't take that much judgment to figure out that you shouldn't welcome Hitler. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. We gnomes must stick together, after all. This editor is a good candidate who is polite and friendly, and who is willing to help out where needed. I also think that he is smart enough to tread carefully in the early going - no rushing into drama here. I see some valid concerns raised below, but I think the overall body of work from this editor indicates that they'd be a net positive to the project as an admin. Good luck! UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Yeah do it, nothing major I have an issue with. —Frosty ☃ 23:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. Many valid concerns are raised in the oppose section, and I am disappointed by EuroCar’s answers to several questions, especially related to media copyright; but most of the answers are good enough. Based on EuroCar’s record, I believe that this user will be a net positive as an administrator. I expect that, whatever the outcome, EuroCar will heed the advice given here (especially regarding asking for help/deferring to other admins when unsure) and continue to be an asset to this project. I also get the sense that adminship could reinvigorate EuroCar’s engagement with the project. This editor doesn’t seem to have packaged themselves well—but that doesn’t necessarily disqualify a candidate for adminship, in my view. Shanata (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Seems trustworthy and sane. Opposers raise valid concerns, but I'm not swayed enough by them to be dissuaded from supporting; nobody is perfect, after all. Based on EuroCarGT's track record, I believe that he will be a net positive as an administrator. I should also note the wise words by Opabinia regalis four supports above: "Being a good admin isn't about answering hypothetical questions." I couldn't have said it better myself. --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 00:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Reiterating my support - albeit weaker than before - despite the very bad answer to Q16. "HitlerIsTheMan" is a blatant username violation, and any account bearing a pro-Hitler name should be blocked immediately. I am going to retain my support of EuroCarGT's adminship based on the expectation that the backlash to several of his answers (particularly A16) will teach him the correct ones, and that he will learn from this experience accordingly. --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 02:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. On balance I believe EuroCarGT has enough experience to be an administrator. Though his answers to some of the questions are weak, I have examined his CSD nominations and AfD voting record which show that, in practice, this user knows what he is doing. Also, having an admin who is willing to answer questions from new users is always a good thing. Altamel (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  76. My familiarity with EuroCarGT prevents me from closing this RfA, especially given how narrow it is. My familiarity with EuroCarGT does, however, mean I can support: I've always found him to be a careful, experienced and sensible user. I am not discomforted by the prospect of him becoming an admin; I am not worried about him abusing or misusing the tools. Acalamari 00:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Solid stuff. --Pudeo' 00:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - Since people will oppose again in a year if he runs again for the same reasons mentioned below, its best to support even though i have no idea what kind of a user he really is, as it is, GA, FA, number of articles created and other random bull regarding mainspace edits are no longer an "option/requirement" to be an admin on this wiki so why do people still bother to use that as an excuse to oppose? Not a single user who has become an admin after their RfA has increased their mainspace edit count, quite the opposite actually, they become less of an editor, more of a bureaucrat...--Stemoc 04:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. Mop'n'bucket should not be a big deal. I've had positive interactions with the candidate, what criticism's I've seen in the oppose section seem like trivial complains (or as ones coming from people who think adminship is a big deal and we need pure and utmost perfection). Humans are not perfect. He will do. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose - Editor's participation peaked in September and October 2013. Since then, their activities have been fairly minimal. Last month, for instance, they logged only 125 edits (23 to articles plus 1 article talk edit, 29 to Wikipedia space, 45 to File space, 10 to their own user space, 15 to user talk and 2 to templates). [1] This doesn't look to me like someone who's sufficiently committed to the project to be trusted with the admin bit. I'm also put off by the fact that they have their talk page set to automatically archive almost as soon as there's anything on it, making it extremely difficult to check on their history of interactions with other editors. Such behavior smacks of trying to hide something. If some good explanations can be provided for these two facts, I could be persuaded to change to "Neutral", but at this point I'm not seeing any strong positives that would encourage me to !vote "Support". BMK (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck through item was my stupid mistake. My apology to EuroCarGT. BMK (talk) 05:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This also has the look of prize collecting about it. BMK (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) September and October 2013 are when Eurocar did most of his recent changes patrolling, which is why there is a relatively large difference in the number of edits made per month. As for the positives, what about his articles, his GA/AfC reviews, his recent/new changes patrolling, and the other things I mentioned in the nomination? Your comment about "not seeing any strong positives" gives the impression that EuroCar hasn't contributed much to Wikipedia, but that seems excessive given his 9000+ non-automatic edits and all the different projects and activities he has been involved in. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused - why can't you just go to the archives if you want to look at the user's interactions with other users? I'm not sure how that's "hiding" something if it's perfectly visible one page click away. --B (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Try it. Try reading a number of ongoing discussions that way. Tain't easy. BMK (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I just had a look at his talk page archive settings, and they're set to archive discussions after 1 week of inactivity. I would say it's reasonable to say that a discussion is not ongoing if it has been inactive for a week, but I take it that you disagree? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I went back four months with no trouble. The only suggestion I would have is that it's a bit confusing that the top of the page shows archive pages 1 and 2 and the sidebar shows the monthly archives. (I assume (without looking) that these are probably template generated lists and it may be unavoidable that one template shows the monthly pages and the other just shows the older numbered ones.) But I don't see any of this as an effort to hide anything by any remote stretch. You can have a reasonable rational discussion about the best practice for archiving talk pages without it being a matter of subterfuge. Some people do not like the clutter and especially if you're someone who helps out novice editors, the cluttered talk pages can be confusing and intimidating for a novice who wants to leave you a message. --B (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mr. Stradivarius - EuroCarGT is not up for appointment as a master editor, he's up for admin. All those things are good, but they're not what being an admin is about. BMK (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken: I wouldn't say that someone with 1,000+ entries in their CSD log wants adminship for a trophy or a "master editor" title. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nor someone who does OTRS work - if you are an active OTRS volunteer, you have an obvious use for the tools. --B (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Several people have said that this is prize collecting or made similar speculations about motives, but I haven't seen any evidence of these motives. Could someone tell me what I'm missing? ekips39 (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose The quality of the candidate's work seems too low. The article steak is actually quite poor in my opinion. If you look at the candidate's own articles, they seem quite weak - stuff like Samuel J. Dickson and HTC Desire 610. I've been through his AFD contributions and am not impressed. There's nothing outstandingly bad or malicious but the general impression is of someone who's still quite green. Andrew D. (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion not related to this user moved to talk page. Sam Walton (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I haven't decided what to think yet, but in light of Andrew's concerns I probably won't support. However, I've noticed something strange about Steak: EuroCarGT seems to have contributed almost none of its content. I noticed that it was somewhat poorly worded, and considering EuroCar's subpar grammar elsewhere (some of which I've fixed on Samuel J. Dickson), I thought I'd check if he was responsible for the wording of Steak, and I found that all he's done is change a few words, add a link and add one referenced sentence (and a handful of other insubstantive changes). (Diffs of his edits (some grouped): [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]) So it shouldn't be held up as an example of how bad his writing is, nor of how good it is. I'm surprised it was considered significant enough to mention in the nomination. ekips39 (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason you are seeing different editing patterns on Steak than you would on other GAs is that it was done as part of the Today's articles for improvement project. This usually means that the editing is going to be collaborative and shared between several different editors. This was also the case with the DYKs I listed in the nomination (notice I said that they were all part of Today's articles for improvement). To see EuroCar's solo content contributions, the list of new articles is probably the most representative sample. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Well it looks like I'm going to have a minority view on this one, but I can't hand on heart support this candidate. I can clearly see that EuroCarGT is keen, enthusiastic and polite and has a basic understanding of policies, and that's excellent. However, I see pitfalls in his style of communication and lack of content experience, which his answer to Q11 in particular raised. To me, it sounded like a vague "non answer" than a serious attempt to analyse a below-par article on a questionable notable subject and give specific answers on specific content. I apologise if it sounded like a trick question, and it's unfair to expect you to have the same interests as me to know that "A Meal You Can Shake Hands With In The Dark" is an album released by Pete Brown and Battered Ornaments, but I was hoping that you would have considered something like a book search, and even the shibboleth of mentioning something like WP:ACADEMIC to Q12 might have been enough to make me stop and think about supporting. Unfortunately I don't think "wait and see" is acceptable, where there is a perennial backlog of CSDs, particularly A7s and G11s - anyone can wait and see, but somebody has got to go through the backlog and workout if a CSD has merit, and it needs to be an admin with good judgement and experience as to what is salvagable content. FWIW this was the same format of question as I recently raised on Fenix Down's successful RfA where he gave an excellent answer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Unfortunately, I too find myself in the minority camp. I find no real issues with the candidates contributions at large but, as Ritchie notes, the answers to the questions here are largely suboptimal. In particular, I find the answer to question 4 far too hand-wavey. In question 9 the candidate seems to think that anyone reported at AIV must have exactly 4 warning templates on their talk page before action can be taken and the answers to questions 11, 12 and 13 strike me as evasive and tangential to the point that the candidate hasn't really answered them—at least not with the kind of insight I would expect from a potential administrator. Bellerophon talk to me 15:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose With much regret, but I agree completely with Ritchie and Bellerophon. --Randykitty (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The answer to Q15 clenches it for me. How to handle this would be very different depending on the nature of the vandalism. Adding "hi! LOL!" to some random article is not the same thing as adding "this guy is an arsehole" to a BLP. The first I would not even give a vandalism warning, but put a welcome template and a note about test edits. In the latter case, I wouldn't bother with a welcome template but put a level 4 vandalism warning. And then there's everything in-between, of course. I'm sorry, but I don't think this candidate it ready yet. --Randykitty (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The answer is confusing because the question is vague. The answer points out how vague the question is. And the person who asked the question voted support. Would it be possible to ask the candidate to elaborate on their answer? Not to be a badger, but trying to catch your drift... --Gaff (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like the candidate has elaborated now with the answer to Q16, and in view of this I feel the need to reiterate my opposition. The candidate said: "I would add a welcome template, as well as a BLP-related warning (additionally the username)". Now, aside from the poor judgement skills that welcoming Hitler-impersonating editors to Wikipedia represents, the candidate has again failed to address the substance of the question, which was to gauge how they determine which severity level of warning template to use. Moreover, they made no mention of skipping the warning altogether and instead blocking the account in question, which would seem to be the appropriate action in this case. Bellerophon talk to me 23:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per answers to the NFCC questions, 5 6 and 8. I wouldn't hold this against the candidate except that he said it's one of the (many, many) areas he intends to work in in his answer to question 1. —Cryptic 17:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've got to reiterate my opposition, too, for the benefit of the closing bureaucrat, if not the other !voters. EuroCarGT is a genuinely nice guy and good editor, but his communication skills aren't suited to adminship. Ample evidence for that appears right in this RFA - he's managed to flub every question posed to him except #7 (a straightforward request for information) and #s 1,2,3,10 (all standard questions - #10's been asked verbatim on many, many other RFAs). Most of them he doesn't even answer: a paraphrase of part of #9, for example - "Q: How do you deal with someone whose only edit is vandalism?" "A: Check to see if he has four vandalism warnings.", and #15: "Q: How do you decide which vandalism warning to put on a user's talk page?" "A: I post uw-vandalism1." The answers are so far into not even wrong territory that I actually went to his user page to see what his native language was. —Cryptic 23:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per User:Ritchie333 and User:Cryptic. --John (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. (edit conflict) Oppose Means well, does good stuff and wouldn't cause serious damage, but enough small quibbles that I can't support. (1) the stubs brought up by Andrew, which are thin on content and sources. While I don't expect only perfect articles, such articles show a shaky grasp of what is and isn't suitable as a topic, and that can lead to suboptimal decisions in deletion work. I've created articles of roughly that calibre and since they're still like that I consider them reason enough not to run. (However, I stand by my earlier statement about Steak: it's clear that it was a collaboration, but EuroCar contributed almost nothing to it whereas others who took part in the collaboration, such as Northamerica1000, contributed significantly more.) Ritchie333's questions and his take on them contribute to my impression -- I note that Q11 makes no mention of finding sources and Q12 seems oddly generic. (2) EuroCar's signature colours violate the WCAG (see [9]). The first colour, #0ff (cyan), has a contrast ratio of 1.3:1 on #fff and 1:1 on #f2dfce (the background of ((hat))); #0ff is especially bad because even I, who have no visual defects and sit close to the screen, find it somewhat hard to read. The second colour, #808080 (grey), has a ratio of 3.9:1 on #fff and 3.1:1 on #f2dfce. The third colour, #ffa500 (orange), has a ratio of 2:1 on #fff and 1.5:1 on #f2dfce. I suggest changing the colours to #008585, #777, and #b95f00 (would look like ///EuroCarGT); it would also be good if there weren't orange text on the talk page. The talk page gradient is ok with black text, but causes cyan and orange to show up better on the dark area and even worse on the light area, and grey to become nearly illegible. (3) the "tripping over" grammar, evident both here and in some articles, doesn't inspire confidence, nor does the trouble with understanding some of the questions. (4) a brief check of AFD !votes suggests that Andrew's assessment of them is accurate; e.g. example, example; this further reinforces (1). (5) this isn't really an objection since I can't quantify it easily, but several of his answers read like explanations to people who are just learning these things, not people who already know it and are assessing knowledge. Finally, I don't consider the inactivity to be an issue, since he explains it here as being due to various real life causes; I encourage those opposing based on lack of dedication to reconsider. ekips39 (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Opposing based off of a weak WCAG guideline isn't the best of oppose reasons. If one wants to get very technical with this, one could have a bot generate the oppose. I find this to be nitpicky to the extreme and would recommend that a bcrat disregard this !notvote's comment on signature quality (without regard to the user's other comments). Nakon 04:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've stricken that part, as on further review I agree that it's weak. ekips39 (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Some of the answers to the questions strike me as quite evasive or a non sequitur and the other answers do not impress in any way. KonveyorBelt 01:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. A review of the editor's content contributions shows little evidence of substantive content work as well as some questionable articles created where notability is not properly demonstrated. I am also worried by poor or generic answers to some questions, especially nos 5, 6, 8, 11, 12 & 13. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. I am finding the totality of the oppose arguments increasingly compelling. Paradoxically, I find the cautious supports of User:Kudpung and User:Dennis Brown to be worrisome. I would suggest a period of mentoring for the applicant, when as seems likely, he gets the mop. I have to say this, in all good faith. I do not want to see a fundamentally decent editor get in over his head. I would appreciate nor being badgered on my decision. I will comment no more. I find the answer to Q 16 especially worrying. A race-hate troll should warrant a stronger reaction than that. Massive issue with not grasping the obviously disruptive username. Hugely Adds to my concerns Irondome (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose The answers to many of the questions are quite poor, and lacking in insight or depth. I also have concerns about communication skills, and that's a big part of what I look for in a candidate. This is a candidate who seems to have their heart very much in the right place, but seems, to me, unsuited to the role of sysop right now. Sorry. Begoon talk 14:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak oppose While I'm sure he'd do a good job in the fields he intends to work in, I'm bothered by the answers to Q6, 8, and 11. For Q6, he tagged it non-free at the same time he tagged it PD as a government edict -- which the binder isn't. In Q8, fair use as he describes it would seem to allow churches to make unlimited copies of their choir music. And in Q11, my first instinct was to delete as gibberish. My second one was to Google part of the text. That instinct doesn't appear to have triggered for the candidate, because if it did, the answer would have read very differently. If he could improve his work on copyright, I'd be happy to support on RFA2. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Switching to Neutral. As long as the candidate reads up on copyright policy and doesn't act in that area until he's sure he knows what he's doing, everything should be fine. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per extremely wrong answer to Q16. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose for many of the reasons already stated. (Q11 may have been a "trick question", but all he needed to do was to ask for the article title, and all would have been clear.) Nice guy, but I get more impression of not wanting to upset anyone than of wanting to defend the encyclopedia from incompetence and vandalism. --Stfg (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose - I was going to be a support early on, but I decided to wait for answers to more questions. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, depending on your perspective), the answers to the questions have not only not impressed me; they have swayed me to oppose. I largely agree with Ritchie333, but I also wanted to note my own observation about the answer to Q11. The statement, "You should never judge an article, by its content, it may seem silly, but the best thing to do is wait and see" strikes me as a cliché answer, and one that would render an administrator wholly ineffective with respect to taking action on CSD-tagged articles. If administrators should not judge an article by its content, then what standard should they judge articles by? I have no problem with an administrator allowing some time to wait and see if an article develops, but at some point, if there is a CSD tag on the article, an administrator is going to have to judge the article by its content. That sentence, in addition to others, has some significant grammar problems as well, and while perfect grammar is not a necessity for a support !vote in my opinion, when a user's grammar is so bad that it makes what he is saying hard to understand, I have a much harder time supporting that candidate. Administrators need to be able to clearly communicate with members; poor grammar (whether intentional or unintentional) hampers that ability. Because of the poor answers to the questions and poor grammar that crosses into making some answers hard to understand, I cannot support the user's candidacy for adminship. Inks.LWC (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Complete failure at both questions 5 and 8 (not to mention other question failures, noted by others above): In question 5, the image's fair use rationale is wrong, relying on the boiler plate "infobox" purpose of use. It's not used in the infobox, and in fact as a reader who knows nothing of this subject I don't really understand why the image is even on the article it is on. Is this related to the subject somehow and its prior history with Indonesia or ...? The image is not mentioned in the prose, and as such has no business being on the article at all. That's a double failure of the image's use under WP:NFCC. According to the candidate the image and its use "is fine". It isn't, in fact very far from it. The answer to question 8 shows a total lack of understanding of non-free content with respect to this project. It is a definition of fair use in the world, but not on Wikipedia...which was asked for specifically in the question. These utter failures combined with the last two sentences answering question 1 shows this person would potentially do far more harm than good with respect to non-free content. I can not support this nomination at this time. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose: Concerned by answers to question 9 which appear to show the candidate believes you cannot block for vandalism if four warnings have not been issued. This is false; for example, level 1 templates are often skipped in cases of clear bad faith. The candidate also states they would work around non-free content but doesn't seem able to lucidly explain policies. Finally, their level of written English as demonstrated on this page is sufficiently poor that I cannot understand some of their answers fully. BethNaught (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Weak Oppose: I want to support anyone who does OTRS work because that's hugely important and there's plenty of work to do. And a few of the opposes for silly reasons almost make me want to support just to cancel one of them out. But answers to questions don't impress me. I'll start with the questions I asked - #5 and #6. I should say, by way of preface, that you do a lot of great work with the graphics lab and these are not representative samples, but, rather, the only two questionable cases I found when looking at your uploads. In the case of the first image, you said "the number one goal is to get the subject of the article to be best illustrated as possible ... ." No, that's actually way down the list. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia and we intentionally forgo non-free images in many cases where we would be 100% solid on legal ground to use them (e.g. publicity photos of living people) because we want to encourage the development of free resources. The article where this image is used has three non-free images, none of which are mentioned in text in any way whatsoever. One of them is the main logo for the organization (I'm guessing anyway). If the other two were discussed somewhere in the article text, they might be okay, but they would barely even pass for decorative in their current usage. In the case of File:NYCRR binder.png, this is using a 3D photo of the book when a 2D scan of it might not be copyrightable at all - I don't know, but I'm assuming that the only creative element on there - the seal in the upper right corner - is public domain by virtue of its age. I don't know if this is the case and certainly good people can disagree over the appropriateness of using this image under a claim of fair use, but your answer had nothing to do with the question at all. "For this image, the original size is 6KB and the uploaded size is 182 KB which means it was not compressed by any means." Whether the image is compressed does not matter as far as NFCC compliance. That is a technical question. Then on the first half of question #8, this response to what does "fair use" mean on English Wikipedia and how does our definition of it differ from the dictionary definition did not impress me: "For the fair use, the best definition I could make out of my head would be allowing it to be use for educational, non-profit, news reporting, criticism, parody and satire purposes, while respecting copyright laws and ensuring that the original source is listed." You gave the dictionary definition, but didn't explain how Wikipedia's use of "fair use" differs from the dictionary definition. There are lots of things that are legally considered fair use that we intentionally don't use and understanding the distinction is important. #13 was a non-answer. This talk page was an example of one of the bigger problems on Wikipedia - well-meaning new users are treated like vandals and are templated, rather than having things explained to them. You used the cliche, "communication is key", but every single person involved was communicating. The existence of communication doesn't solve the problem - you have to communicate the right things and in the right way. --B (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. I hate to oppose an RfA, especially for a candidate who obviously has some experience and clearly means well, but I don't think EuroCar is ready for adminship at present. The answers to the questions show only a superficial understanding of policy (many examples in earlier opposes), and I'm not seeing any deep analysis, exercises of judgement, or thinking outside the box. There's a very good reason we select humans to do admin work, even the mundane button-mashing, rather than robots (which are perfectly capable of of blocking/deleting/protecting once given conditions are met): judgement. Admins need to know the policies they work with inside out and back to front, but they need to know that (quite deliberately) there isn't a policy for every possible scenario, and sometimes (rarely) policy gets in the way of protecting the encyclopaedia. The answer to Q4 concerns me gravely—((spamublock)) is way, way over the top; that's an extremely bitey template that essentially says "go away and don't ever darken our doorway again"; I only use it on spammers who are only being greedy and wouldn't write neutrally if their lives depended on it. For somebody who's just written an article about their business but clearly doesn't understand what Wikipedia is (rather than somebody wilfully abusing Wikipedia), I almost always use ((softerblock)), which is less bitey and encourages them to create a new account/change their username if they're actually interested in contributing. But more to the point, the scenario described in that question is one where the best approach is to talk to the person—ie exercise judgement and maybe discretion like a human, instead of mashing the button and moving on like a robot; somebody who's uploaded a series of high-quality images to Commons is not a drive-by spammer, and could be reformed into a good contributor. Watermarks can be removed, and the article will probably have to be deleted, but we can find other homes for the photos and we should encourage the editor to upload more. They might even be happier on Commons than on Wikipedia. The understanding of NFCC/copyright in other answers also leaves lot to be desired, as does the idea that vandals should need four warnings before being blocked (nobody needs a warning to know that a website won't tolerate you replacing the contents of its pages with profanities). You haven't understood the nuance of Q9, where the answer for the editors who aren't just throwaway accounts is almost always "talk to them and ask them what on Earth they think they're doing"; there are many possible reasons for their actions, but to none of them is the appropriate response to slap them with a ((uw-vandal1)). EuroCar, I have no doubt that you would be great at handling most of the issues that come past AIV and RfPP, which require a quick check and a yes or a no. What concerns me is what you'd do in situations which require deeper analysis, or for which the answer isn't in the book, or where going 'by the book' isn't the best thing for the encyclopaedia. Those questions were meant to test what you'd do when judgement was required, and I'm afraid you've failed the test.

    I could certainly see myself supporting a future RfA. If you can assuage my concerns, I might even consider nominating you. But you need to show us that you can exercise independent judgement, make difficult decisions, balance competing priorities, not just swing the banhammer and move on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Some of the supporters have been reiterating their support as this RfA enters its final hours (noting that at the time of writing, it stands at 72% which is towards the lower end of the bureaucrats' discretionary range, so it's unlikely to be closed purely "by the numbers"). I regretfully feel the need to reiterate my opposition. Much of the support consists of "me too" votes that add no insight whatsoever; more concerning is that some of the more recent supporters seem to think that the opposition boils down to a misunderstanding of NFCC (one supporter actually suggests that it's not necessary for the candidate to understand "the complexities of copyright"—an area in which they have explicitly indicated an interest!). My concerns are much deeper than that: I think the candidate lacks depth of understanding of vital policies for the areas they want to work in and hasn't demonstrated any dynamic decision-making ability—which is the raison d'être of an admin corps of humans rather than robots. I cite several examples above, which also appear to concern other opposers, none of which are addressed in any of the support rationales. Put bluntly: While I have no doubt that EuroCar is a nice person and a good editor being nice is not sufficient qualification to be an admin. More importantly, poor judgement or rigid application of the letter of the law (however well intentioned) can do as much damage as malice; they result in entirely avoidable problems like (for example) good editors getting upset about apparently heavy-handed actions or the enabling of seriously malicious editors. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose,regretfully. I'm concerned by the vagueness of his response to questions, which show lack of a depth of understanding of policy. While a prolific contributor, as observed above his contributions dramatically peaked in 2013, and I notice that 11,000 contributions, almost half, are from use of the Huggle and STiKi semi-automated tools. Since adminstrator appointments are lifetime, and unfortunately there is no way of extracting a user from an adminship even if he or she turns out to be a rotten apple or a paid editor, we need to be extra-careful in selecting people for these positions. Coretheapple (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be fair to say that removing admins is difficult, but this page proves that it's not impossible, and it's odd that you should say such a thing so shortly after Wifione, a (presumably) paid editor, was desysopped for whitewashing his company's article. ekips39 (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For sure, but short of drastic steps in drastic situations the position is lifetime. For that reason (if I may use the opportunity to reiterate my opposition) I am underwhelmed by the various support !votes that say simply such things as "won't abuse tools" or "net plus for the project." Until we have a mechanism for removing adminstrators who just don't work out, who were a poor choice to begin with, who are mediocre but not terrible enough to haul before arbcom, it will be necessary to closely scrutinize those who wish to become administrators. Some very fine editors may not get the nod because they do not demonstrate sufficient familiarity with policy, because their content work is not impressive, or because they do not appear to have the maturity or temperament to be an administrator. This is not "persecution," it is common sense. Coretheapple (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. The candidate is simply not strong enough on policy issues as reflected in some of the answers to questions. I understand that new admins are not expected to know everything when they first start (I know I didn't; indeed, I'm still learning), but if a specific question is asked at RfA, the candidate should be able to give a credible answer based on reading the relevant policy(ies). They should also not be eager to get into areas, e.g., CSD, where they evince a poor understanding of policy. My second reason is the candidate doesn't appear to be tough enough. They don't have to be nasty to be an administrator, but there seems to be too much emphasis on being nice at the expense of prolonging disruption. I'm not a big believer in the we-need-more-admins and it-doesn't-look-like-they'll-abuse-the tools rationales. EuroCarGT appears to be a very nice person - and that's great - but they need to be able to use the tools effectively and incisively, and I don't get the impression that they have the temperament for that, although perhaps in the future they could persuade me otherwise.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose w/regret. Clearly candidate has done a lot of good work in many areas, so the request for promotion is appropriate. There are more than enough AIV reports for one claiming anti-vandal interest. My reservation is the application and/or understanding of policy. I second many comments in this section. Good candidates should understand this audience and know what to put in Q3 (a content skill). Part of !vote is understanding policy arguments carry weight, but that also means one must understand policy, apply it to given fact patterns, cite it, and explain it. ("Delete - May not meet WP:NACTOR, article is unsourced with just one source showing movies he was in." 25 October 2013 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Razak Khan; see also Mkativerata's support # 10 about lack of "prescient AfD contributions or input into editing disputes".) The non-free content misses are serious (badge is not needed to illustrate org; copyvio). Similar issue (but only troublesome) is reference to WP:VOA (which states some indefs are done without any warnings; continued disruption). I can overlook some weak policy understanding if there is evidence of both reserve and research, but the above answers do not give me that confidence. Monthly edit count is not an issue for me. Weak content contribution is a concern for an admin claiming CSD in Q1, but I haven't examined that issue closely. Glrx (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    re revisiting. I opposed before Q15 hit. When I wrote the oppose, I considered what my opinion would be if EuroCar had not mentioned CSD in Q1; anti-vandal can be more black-and-white/less nuanced than CSD. I wasn't sure; maybe I'd be neutral. Q15 is a good question; it should invoke discussion about criteria for the three levels, but it didn't. EuroCar's answer was consistent with other answers: it went to a specific result rather than offering or showing insight into the issues. After Q15, I'm in the oppose camp even if the task is only anti-vandal; I'm just not seeing the required clarity here. I am seeing an absence of discussion ("May not meet WP:NACTOR" doesn't give a clue about how it may fail the criteria) and contradiction (saying article is unsourced but then quoting a source). I want to believe that an editor can study a policy page and then apply it, but I'm not seeing that here. Q5 did not examine the underlying premise but just keyed on keeping the image minimal. Candidates should be stepping carefully here, and more should have been gleaned. Q16 hits, and it is another disaster; instead of a welcome note to Hilter there should be a report to WP:UAA. Glrx (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23. ... Cloudchased (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Friendly request Please could you explain your rationale for opposition? It would help the discussion. Please do not take this as badgering, because it is not. I feel I have to ask, as you may have new insights. Regards Irondome (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm aware that activities such as GA reviewing don't have a bearing on one's qualifications for wielding the mop, the astonishing brevity of the candidate's GA reviews (case: Talk:Jennifer Lopez/GA1), among other things, makes me question their patience and judgment. Cloudchased (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused. This GA review was closed by consensus on request from two heavily involved editors. How much more elaboration is required? Sometimes brevity is a virtue also known as concision. --Gaff (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24. I share the concerns of many of the above opposers, particularly HJ Mitchell and Bbb23. Townlake (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. Answer to question 15 is problematic. Whether one starts with a mild or more severe template is at least partially dependent upon the character of the offense. Other editors raise valid concerns over and above that. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose – I very much agree with the reasons provided by Ritchie333, and also would draw attention to the GA reviews mentioned by Cloudchased above. Such reviews demonstrate a certain flippancy that administrators must not have. RGloucester — ☎ 22:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose As others have expressed, the answers given to the questions (in particular Q11 and Q15) are worrisome. And per Randykitty. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose with regret, and with encouragement to try again in six months if this effort is unsuccessful. I agree, especially, with HJ Mitchell's remarks. I encourage the candidate to take the constructive criticism offered here to heart, whether or not this request is successful. I wish the candidate well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose: I so desperately wanted to give my full and utter support to this candidate. His contributions are great, he seems very courteous and polite, his AFD participation is fantastic and his page creation log is exemplary. But when I started to read the answers to some of his questions (especially Q10-Q15), the worry set in. I'm afraid this user doesn't, on the surface at least, have enough knowledge of policy for the mop/has put adequate effort into his answers to the questions. While I understand his answer to Q11 indicating that he might point to a patent nonsense CSD nomination, he hasn't taken the time to find that this is the name of an actual release by Pete Brown and his Battered Ornaments. I would have liked him to have given slightly more detail on Q14, naming more specific examples and talking a bit more about the actual response to the allegations, which is a lot of the question. And finally on Q15, like a lot of other editors have stated, he should've given more detail into what types and severity levels of vandalism would have qualified for each of the warning templates, from good faith to bad faith assumptions. I would highly recommend that this user enrol at Wikipedia:CVUA after this RFA - it's a highly enriching course. Otherwise, you have made great contributions and after a year or two reading up on policies I will offer up my full support to this candidate. See you around, amigo. --The one that forgot (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose The confident guessing approach to answering questions is less preferable than saying (where appropriate): I'm not sure, I'd defer to another administrator, etc. Minor point, I agree the "with honour" was a bit much (and doesn't really make sense). Ben Moore (talk) 12:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Regretful oppose - My concerns about EuroCarFT's understanding of policies and how individual admin judgement plays into their interpretation are expressed almost perfectly by HJ Mitchell. NFCC is more strict than fair use under US copyright law (ETA: "in part")→ in part because of the legal exposure to the WMF, and thus the entire project. I also have some reservations about EuroCarFT's clarity when communicating. I'm very open to voting to support at the next RfA in 6-12 months, provided that they can shore up their understanding of policy and a nuanced application of the same. Good luck next time, and thank you for your contributions.- MrX 19:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Minor nitpick; the NFCC policy isn't because of a desire to reduce legal exposure. It's due to our free content mission. Legally, we could use a LOT more non-free content, as we are an educational resource. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Sorry. The Hitler account answer is the straw that broke my camel's back. See Bellerophon above. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC) (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/EuroCarGT#switch vote; moved by —Cryptic 01:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    Agree User:Mkativerata. It is the duty of admins to come down hard on race hate trolls. Very disappointing response. That seals my opposition too. Admins must show zero tolerance to racist edits. BLP is a bizarre usage as Anne Frank died in 1945. Has the candidate not researched Anne Frank? Now major concerns on BLP understanding also. Unacceptably weak answer. Irondome (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose, good editor but just not ready for the mop yet. Nsk92 (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose. As with Mkativerata, question 16 really tips the balance for me. There are many, many areas where admins should tread cautiously and err on the side of assuming (perhaps too much) good faith, but offering an Anne Frank-vandalizing "HitlerIsTheMan" account a "welcome" template and a warning instead of a quick indef block is just not a reasonable course of action for an admin to take. 28bytes (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  35. I was wavering already, with concerns about the candidate's familiarity with policy, and then came the Hitler account answer... Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose Moved from Neutral due to Q 16. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose I do apologize, but I'm not comfortable with the answer to Q16, especially from someone who wants to lend a hand at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. MJ94 (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose - Unfortunately, I'm going to have to oppose. The questions to Q15 and Q16, one was hardly an answer and the other I found that it was unclear and doesn't assume enough good faith in the latter case. These answers aren't really consistent with what I expect from an admin. Sorry again, — kikichugirl oh hello! 03:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose - based on review; may be a good admin at a future date. Kierzek (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose I hate to switch from supporting to opposing, but the answer to Q16 is just too much to overcome. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 05:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose Answer to Q16. StewdioMACK Talk page 07:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral while user's article work is solid, Beyond My Ken's point on low edit frequency makes me somewhat concerned. I'd be more comfortable supporting if user was more active. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, while that admin tools are WP:NOBIGDEAL, and I do not see any bright line reasons for opposing the nomination, the editor in question has very few edits recently, and their content creation could use some work. Maybe check back in a year or two, and I might move up to support.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion moved to talk page. ekips39 (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral.(moved to support) I'll vote in one of the major sections of this RfA when all the off-topic/tangential discussions have been moved to the talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral. I am seeing a good, solid editor here. No more, no less. Happy to support in a few months to a year. I will be looking for a marked decrease in semi automated edits and more manual article edits. Irondome (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC) (Moved to oppose)[reply]
    Neutral leaning towards oppose. Some time back I think witnessed behaviour that I would not be comfortable coming from an admin, though in fairness I can't find it now and I may have been getting confused with somebody else (in which case I apologise). I need to ask some questions as soon as I can find relevant data. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Though I originally said that there was nothing to make me oppose, the opposers do make good points. Additionally, the candidate has repeatedly said that "communication is key", but doesn't seem to actually communicate very effectively. Sam Walton (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I've made my way down here, mostly based on concerns of poor English – on top of concerns already expressed in my support !vote. I think EuroCarGT is great with new users, and approachable, but I believe better communication is necessary when your words may carry greater weight (for better or for worse), or when you need to explain rationale behind potentially controversial actions you've taken. You don't need to be the source of words of wisdom but you do need to be able to articulate your thoughts in a clear and understandable way. — MusikAnimal talk 03:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral Leaning oppose. I decided to wait a little longer on this one, but I'm still not sure what to !vote. The candidate has a solid CSD log and I think they would make a good admin in some respects, but I am quite concerned about the answers to several questions, as discussed in the oppose section. I'll think about this some more, but I suspect that I'll end up staying here. BenLinus1214talk 03:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. (edit conflict)Neutral It's not in my blood to downright oppose someone, but I'm also mixed in my opinion on the candidate, too much that I can't fully support, so neutral's the best place for this. Being an OTRS member scores a lot of points, as well as his work in WP:TAFI. Being a vandal fighter myself, I know that a vandal fighter is generally a liked, well-respected position, and since an admin's main*ish* job is to fight vandalism, this user's participation in recent changes patrolling scores a lot of points from me. Not to egg on the opposers here, but the oppose comments do have their weight and reasoning. A lot of users are dissatisfied with the candidate's responses to the questions. Some have rejected this as a "silly oppose reason" but I personally feel that a Wikipedia administrator should be able to communicate effectively with proper English (we are the English Wikipedia after all). Not saying that they need to speak like a professor with highly technical terms that would put even Einstein to sleep (or in a state of utter confusion), but if you're working with new editors a lot, good English with proper punctuation is absolutely critical to avoid confusion. I have no real issues with the candidate receiving the mop or not, but if the candidate does get the mop, I'd advise the candidate to keep the oppose comments in mind. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 03:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral. Sporadic AfD !voting, last in December 2014. However AfD comments have generally been sensibly considered. CSD log looks okay. Limited amount of content creation. Some of the answers are a little vague and just seem to be quoting policies/guidelines, especially the answers to questions 11 & 12. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral; many good points, and bad points have been raised about the nominee. I think he could make an excellent admin, but I think he has a bit to go, while at the same time, the tools would help in what he does now, but would it make much of a difference? I'm just not sure if admins should only have a few areas of expertise. (Maybe a deeper look into the candidate will change my !vote.) -- Orduin Discuss 19:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral switched from oppose. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Switched back to oppose. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral Moved from support. Answers to some of the questions and concerns by opposers are the reasons. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral Moved from support as well. My convictions are not strong enough to merit an outright oppose, certainly not enough so to push this RFA closer to unsuccessful. I do have some concerns so I'll sit here. Mkdwtalk 22:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral Also moved (reluctantly) from support. I find the answer to Q16 unsatisfactory. I choose to interpret it as a poor choice of example rather than a different, more serious mistake, but I do hope that you will reflect on whether a user with a pro-Hitler handle posting antisemitic comments poses any other sort of policy issue than just violating WP:BLP. Ivanvector (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral (reluctant): Although the candidate would make a fine admin, the answer to question 16 is questionable. While the answers to the image questions aren't much of a problem as soon as the candidate brushes up on copyright policy, the answer to question 16 shows that more experience is needed to understand administrator intervention against vandalism and to use of the block tool well as an admin (in general). I would, at the very least, give the "Hitler" editor an appropriate level 4/4im warning for vandalism or disruptive editing. Esquivalience t 02:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral (moved from support). I'm very sorry that I have to do this, but the answer to Q16 is quite disturbing. An account with a pro-Nazi username is alone grounds for a block, even more so if they start vandalizing articles on Jews. I'll AGF and assume that Euro was tired and had a temporary lapse of judgement, but I'm afraid that I can no longer support. --Biblioworm 03:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category