Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Widr

Widr

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (117/9/5); Scheduled to end 18:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination

Widr (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you User:Widr for your consideration as an administrator. I've known and worked with Widr for over two years. With over 200,000 contributions, 250+ articles created, it's safe to say his experience and hours put into the project is beyond what many of us may ever achieve. A quick glance at his talk page archives demonstrates his calm manner and ability to work with new users, even when faced with the most fierce of backlashing vandals. Meanwhile a 93% accuracy rate at AfD shows a strong understanding of policy.

On the counter-vandalism front, Widr is one of the best in the fleet. I work roughly during the same hours as he does, and can attest to the accuracy of his AIV reports. Not having the block and protect buttons is a detriment to the project as it transfers the workload to other admins, when Widr is perfectly qualified to handle it himself – while also lending a much needed hand in processing others' reports. That makes him a net-positive, but I think as an admin he'll far exceed that classification.

Given the nature of his work, Widr has a very high automated edit count in the mainspace. I used my own tool to compute the stats and have posted them on the talk page. I want to point out that if you discount the counter-vandalism numbers from STiki, rollback, and Huggle, we're looking at 12764 total edits. That brings his non-automated contribs percentage to 66% in the mainspace, a quite respectable figure. That aside, the 100,000+ counter-vandalism edits profoundly confirms his dedication and diligence in protecting the wiki. This is what the admin toolset is primarily for, and I envision Widr's prosperity in this regard will be nothing short of prolific.

Overall I believe Widr will be a fine addition to admin squadron. I don't worry about him exercising tools in areas he's uncomfortable with; his interests are well-defined, only his potential is hampered without the additional toolset. Thank you for your time — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for the kind words, MusikAnimal. I'm happy to accept. Widr (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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 will mainly focus on AIV. That's the area I have been working in and around for most of my time here, and the one that is usually backlogged and always in need of extra eyes. I expect to visit UAA and RFPP occasionally, partly because some of the reports at AIV will have to be dealt with at other venues and partly because I already visit them frequently. Generally I'm not likely to jump head-first into unknown waters, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't one day be tempted to operate out of my comfort zone.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I'm happy to have been able to create some kind of coverage for several Finnish actors, singers, bands and other subjects who deserve a little bit of recognition in this project too, even if those articles have mostly remained more or less stubbish so far. Other than that, my contributions tend to be gnome-like fixes here and there, nothing spectacular enough to be raised above the rest of my maintenance work. I believe that preserving the current quality of content is equally important as creating new quality content, so to me it only seems logical that I have also filed over 2000 vandalism reports at AIV during my years here.

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: Apart from occasional misunderstandings that come with the territory when dealing with vandalism, I have not been in conflicts. This is largely because I avoid such situations and have never been drawn to unnecessary drama. Like for most volunteers, Wikipedia is just a hobby for me, something that I often do while I'm doing ten other things at the same time. I can see no reason to stress over a hobby. In real life, and online too, I always think before I act (or press preview before I hit the save button), which also significantly reduces my chances of getting into conflicts.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Hchc2009

4. Widr, it's important to me that potential administrators have adequate experience in researching and writing articles. Is there any particular article you would highlight as evidence of what you have achieved as a content creator?

A: There is obviously room for improvement in all of the articles I have created. I'm the first to admit that none of them are nowhere near GA or FA quality, but that has never even been my intention. As I see it, having a stub is far better than nothing at all, and when time allows, chances are that more will come, either from myself or from someone else. Instead of naming one particular article, I'd like to mention some of the ones that have been on my to-do list for expansion for quite some time. Actor Hannes Häyrinen; basic things are already present, but there could be more focus on the details of his career. Actress Regina Linnanheimo should also have more coverage, especially because of her work with director Teuvo Tulio. I created the article for Tulio's last film Sensuela (one without Linnanheimo) and have been planning to do the same for the rest of his films as well. Of my most recent articles, the one for album En kommentoi is in slow development, as it is a current one and has potential for future updates.

Additional question from Liz

5. Widr, it is surprising for me to read your statement "Like for most volunteers, Wikipedia is just a hobby for me, something that I often do while I'm doing ten other things at the same time." I think this is because when I edit Wikipedia, it is the only thing I am concentrating on. Can you see the likelihood of error if you are deleting pages or blocking editors when you are just giving the process a fraction of your attention? You are obviously prolific but I don't think in admin activities, speed is a desirable quality.

Second question, the community needs to be able trust you to be thorough and circumspect in performing administrative tasks. When you make mistakes, you can expect them to be brought to your attention, so some conflict is unavoidable. Can you start focusing on quality over quantity?

A: I rarely focus only on Wikipedia even though I'm online for several hours every day and keep Wikipedia pages open most of those hours. It doesn't mean that I'm not paying attention at those moments when I'm undoing vandalism or adding a missing comma somewhere. My statement simply means that, as this is a volunteer work, I can't give Wikipedia my 100% attention all the time. Basically, a Wikipedia page might be open, but I don't necessarily look at it, if I'm doing my "real" work, paying bills, or something similar. But I would not be blocking anyone or deleting anything either then. Mistakes and misunderstandings are inevitable in the wikiworld, and happen to everyone at times, whether we concentrate or not. Good thing is that here they are hardly beyond repair and that we usually learn from them. As for the second question, yes, I am happy to be informed of any mistakes that I have made, even if it's just a misclick or a missed piece of vandalism. Furthermore, I have no intentions to perform any admin tasks without thorough research. I'm pretty sure there are no conflicts that could not be settled through discussions, and I will also keep focusing on quality, just like I have tried to do until now.

Additional question from Seattle

6. A user states she wants to kill herself on your talkpage. What do you do?

A: I would immediately contact the Foundation's Emergency staff, as evaluating the credibility or making any type of analysis of such threats is beyod the scope of volunteer work.

Additional question from SSTflyer

7. You visit UAA and see these reports. What do you do?

• Articles for deletion
• Channel2
• Executive Platinum
• Feminist dominatrix
• Jason Taylor
• Mackinac Island
• Salvidim!

A:

• Articles for deletion: I'm assuming that this would be a username, not the category itself that someone has reported. Because this kind of a name could easily cause confusion, I would suggest a username change and see how the user responds. This could very well be a troll account, so the consequences would have to be decided based on their activity, not purely on the username.
• Channel2: Soft block per WP:ORGNAME and WP:ISU.
• Executive Platinum: Nothing wrong with this one as a username.
• Feminist dominatrix: Nothing wrong with this one as a username either.
• Jason Taylor: Real name, and not the most uncommon one, so unless this user would be pretending to be someone they are not, this would be permitted as well.
• Mackinac Island: Acceptable username, but I would follow their edits to see if there are promotional intentions.
• Salvidim!: Good faith would not allow me think that this would be an innocent coincidence, so I would block them for impersonating User:Salvidrim!

Additional question from TJH2018

8. What does Wikipedia mean to you?

A: Whenever I come online, Google is usually my first stop and Wikipedia is the second one. It's a source for endless knowledge for me, and no matter what kind of information I'm looking for, there always seems to be an article about it. As I'm mostly concentrating on recent changes and patrolling, the variety of articles I come across daily is truly overwhelming. All these plants, animals and persons I have never heard of before. All the places from big cities to obscure little villages. It's fascinating that all this information is here for free, for everyone to access and always evolving, and that we are all here together, around the world, from different cultures and backgrounds, all trying our best to make it even better. Having been part of the community for 5+ years, it's safe to say that it has grown into an addiction for me, but luckily, I consider it to be one of the healthiest ones.

Additional question from Hchc2009

9. Widr, a second question for you, with the aim of trying to explore a little more about your wider approach to articles etc. Last year, an editor (not me, in case you're wondering) brought an issue concerning primary and secondary sources to an RFC, here. The emerging consensus was fairly clear, but the issue itself had some tricky implications, and members of both sides on the debate felt strongly about the outcome (and indeed continue to do so). If you'd been engaging in this particular debate, what would your specific comment/recommendation have been?

A: Good question. I often read these kinds of discussions, although I rarely participate in them myself. I tend to agree with the closing statement. Secondary sources should be required whenever possible, and the value of each entry in these "in popular culture" sections should be considered before adding them. Depending on the general quality of the article, we may sometimes be less strickt, though. It is also good to remember that such sections often attract lots of young or inexperienced editors who are not familiar with our referencing policies and other guidelines, which is perfectly understandable (I was one of them once). Frequently I see edits such as "she/he did this and that on stage", and when requesting for a proper source, the reply I usually get is that it was on YouTube. Speaking on a general level, occasional leniency and judging on a case-by-case basis might be the best way forward.

Additional question from xaosflux

10. Admins have to deal with messy and complicated closures, balancing policies with requests and editor interaction, as an example - How would you resolve this discussion: WP:MFD/User:Aakheperure/Khaled Abol Naga draft. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

A: It appears that the consensus is leaning towards history merge, even though there are concerns that it would be a messy one. On the other hand, only seven people have voiced their opinions so far, so it probably would be best not to close it yet. Having said that, it is highly unlikely that you will see me dealing with this area of the project in near future. I'm sure that of the 1314 admins that we currently have, there are those who are more qualified than me for this particular line of work.

Additional question from BU Rob13

11. Administrators often are brought into conflicts whether they wish to join them or not. This is especially true when you're handling reports at AIV/AN3/RFPP that go beyond the "simple" vandal. Could you explain your general approach to dealing with conflict?

A: I would not take any action before doing a thorough research of the situation. I would need to see the evidence, hear both sides of the story from all persons involved and discuss with those who know the background. I would not hesitate to consult other admins, especially those who are familiar with persons involved, and work with them to find a solution. It's unlikely that heated situations will be dealth with in a matter of minutes, hours or even days, but the ultimate way to find a common ground would be through discussion in a civil manner.

Additional question from Omni Flames

12. According to your AFD statistics you've only participated in 19 different AFDs over your many years on Wikipedia. Although a 93% accuracy rate in those 19 AFDs shows a good understanding of policy, the tiny number of AFDs you've participated in means there isn't really a lot to go on. You are, however, very active in the speedy deletion process. If you did become an admin, would you intend to be more active in the AFD process, or would you stick with what you currently do, reverting vandalism and patrolling new pages? — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 04:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

A: The low number of AfD participations is because I have never seeked them on purpose. I have only come across them while doing my other routine work with recent changes, noticed that there's a discussion going on and then joined in, or found a couple of bad articles and nominated them myself. I'm not particularly interested in the area of deletions, so I have never felt a need to forcefully participate in them just to get my numbers up. Most of the speedy deletion nominations also tend to come through patrolling, and are usually G7 tags when I notice that the author has blanked them. I'm not seeing myself becoming more involved with AfD process at this time, which is not to say I never will, but for now I'd rather stay in the areas that are more appealing to me.

Additional question from Fred Gandt

13. In your answer to Liz's question, you stated "Good thing is that here they [mistakes and misunderstandings] are hardly beyond repair and that we usually learn from them." followed by "... even if it's just a misclick or a missed piece of vandalism.". With administrators tools, there comes a heavy responsibility to not misclick, as this may be beyond repair (or at least very ugly) in non-technical terms. It could also be argued that it's not the unique situations (e.g. vandalism) an administrator misses, rather it's those situations the administrator administers that matters. With these points in mind, your frankly epic number of anti-vandalism edits suggests you work through the changes at some speed, perhaps resting assured that any mistakes aren't the end of the world. Q: If granted, would the weight of administrative responsibility slow you down?

A: First, it's good to understand that performing any kind of admin work and doing general recent changes patrolling are two very different things. When I'm going through edits, nowadays usually with STiki, all the actions are logged in. That includes each occasion I press "innocent" or "pass" button (meaning that there is nothing wrong the current edit), so the high edit count on the leaderboard mentioned in the discussion below does not only reflect the reverted vandalism but the actions overall. In fact, majority of the edits I come across daily are innocent. I always keep a separate browser open to check the history of any particular article with suspicious changes, as with STiki you only see the differences between the two most recent edits. In spite of this, mistakes can happen, and sometimes I only notice them afterwards when the next editor points them out to me. It's a human thing, and happens to all of us doing this kind of work at some point. Actual admin work, on the other hand, is something that always requires a thorough background check, from article history to user's edit history and blocklogs, so, rest assured, that will never happen with just pushing a button quickly and moving on. From my years of working in this field, I dare to say that I have grown a pretty good hunch in telling the difference between confused good faith newbies and intentional trollers or vandalism-only accounts. Whenever there's a case when I can't be 100% sure, I can always leave it to the next admin to decide, which is the usual practice in these areas.

Additional question from Winterysteppe

14. What will be your legacy to Wikipedia?

A. Wikipedia has been a learning experience and a logical journey for me since day one; from simple gnoming and stub writing I've gone to counter-vandalism, and recently I've become more and more involved in clearing the file moving request backlogs, in addition to general patrolling. I'd like to do my part in trying to make more people understand that you can be major benefit to the project even if you're not a master in all possible areas. Just because I'm not the greatest content creator around, my work in other fields is not any less important. Nothing happens in a vacuum here, and we're all pieces of this puzzle. I'd also like be thought of as someone who never puts down opinions of others even though my personal interests or preferences might be completely elsewhere. I guess the combination of all these things will in time define my ultimate legacy here.

Additional question from Hugh

15. Any experience taking articles to good article or featured article?

A. Not so far. I know the basics of the process, and there are some persons I would probably turn to if at some point I decided to get involved in the area. But at the moment I have no plans to do that. We have plenty of dedicated and qualified editors for that work, while I prefer to concentrate on other things.

Discussion

• Links for Widr: Widr (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Widr can be found here.

---

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

Support

1. As nominator — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

   MusikAnimal, I wonder why your (excellent) tools don't work when using them to query the candidate? I can't get all his stats. (They work for others.) Maybe he has no non-automated edits or BLP edits? Prhartcom (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

   @Prhartcom: Ha, that's what happens when you have 200,000+ edits!! I think I need to allot my tools more RAM. I ran the query on Widr on my local machine and posted the results on the talk page. I can do the same for BLP edits. You'll also note XTools seems to think he has made 0 page moves, uploaded 0 files, and patrolled 0 pages... When there's that much data and the RAM runs out, you might get some inaccurate numbers, but I'm confident in the ones I've put on the talk page — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

   Thank-you! Yes, as I say below, there is no denying that the candidate is master at touching an article and moving on to the next one better than anyone. Prhartcom (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

   Terrible non-automated edit stats. We just crucified another candidate for that. Prhartcom (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

2. Incredible vandalism fighter, tireless for five years. In an ideal world all of our administrators would have written longer articles on major topics, participated extensively in AfD, etc. etc. etc., but sometimes well-lopsided is as good as well-rounded, and I trust that Widr will work on the parts of the encyclopedia that he knows best and take some of the admin responsibilities for vandalism fighting off admins who'd rather work on other parts of the site. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
3. Another user that I thought was an admin already. I have had occasions to work with Widr at times in clearing vandalism, and fell they are an excellent choice to handle the duties of adminship. They would be a welcome addition to the admin team here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
4. Yes yes yes! As an admin who works at AIV I'd love to have Widr on board. BethNaught (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
5. Support. His dedication to fighting vandalism is impeccable, and it will be extremely useful when he is an admin. His record of content creation is great, too. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
6. Support. Candidate seems dedicated and qualified for admin work. I am especially impressed by the civility, helpfulness, and general demeanor of the responses to and discussion with editors who comment on his talk page. TheBlinkster (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
7. Support - The mop will allow Widr to be even more productive. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
8. (edit conflict × 2) This is coming way too late. For those of you who need more reason then that, look at Widr's articles and counter-vandalism record in general, and to top it off there's no reason to oppose. Kharkiv07 (T) 18:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
9. Yes, it's about time. De728631 (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
10. Support. Have often come across this editor at WP:AIV and during recent changes patrol. Trusted user who will make good use of the tools. utcursch | talk 18:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
11. Support: Why not after six figures of reverts? I trust the candidate not to close AfDs, so lack of participation is not a concern. Esquivalience ^t 18:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
12. Support Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
13. Support: I aplaud his initiative to become an admin. Experienced, dedicated and responsible. I believe he deserves the trust of the community and I am convinced that with the tools he will be an even greater asset to our project.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
14. Support - For some reason I thought he already was an admin so was a bit surprised to see the RFA, Anyway excellent candidate, No issues, Good luck :) –Davey2010^Talk 19:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
15. Support, will make an excellent administrator. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
16. Support per above. Note: (IMO) protecting existing Wikipedia content is now at least as important as adding new content. DexDor ^(talk) 19:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
17. Support. Excellent vandal fighter, no qualms whatsoever. Overall I see Widr as a helpful person who should be trusted with these tools. --Ches (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
18. Support - We will rarely get a better candidate for administrator. Highly experienced both in creating articles and in dealing with vandals, we are lucky to have people like this around. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
19. Support TeriEmbrey (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
20. Support Wait, Widr isn't an admin already?! Datbubblegumdoe^{[talk – contribs]} 20:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
21. Support Very appropriate and qualified, continue preserving Wikipedia as best you can.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 20:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
22. Support About time Widr ran for RFA. Fine vandal fighter that's experienced with admin-work. Only oppose !vote, as of this writing, doesn't convince me. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
23. Support I don't think that I can say anything for myself on my reasoning, particularly with this case, do I? Dschslava (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
24. Support Upon review, I see no reason to oppose. Any gaps in experience can be picked up on the job. I don't foresee Widr breaking the Wikipedia if given the tools. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
25. Support I was also surprised to realise that Widr wasn't already an admin. I believe that he would be an excellent wielder of the tools. --bonadea contributions talk 22:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
26. Support I admire his enthusiasm and hard work. He is a suitable candidate for promotion as an administrator. Prof TPMS (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
27. Support The key question at an RfA is whether the candidate has clue. "Experience" is mostly a heuristic to evaluate clue. Getting caught up in counting how many stubs and how many GAs and how many AfDs and how many OMGWTFBBQs is mistaking the map for the territory. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

    And so how is Opabinia regalis measuring this clue, please? When I review the candidate's edits, it seems hard to discern the clue because they are mostly mechanical. For example, consider this revert. What's that all about? Where is the clue? Andrew D. (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

    Logged-out editors may not place numbered votes. BethNaught (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

    And wouldn't a clueful editor explain this in the edit summary or elsewhere? Per WP:AGF, "Everyone makes mistakes ... Most of the time, we can correct such mistakes with simple reminders." Still not seeing the clue. Andrew D. (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

    If you really want to scrape the bottom of the barrel, you can surely do better than "once implemented an uncontroversial policy efficiently". For example, the "articles created" banner on his userpage has a black background, against which the "edit" link has poor contrast. How could we possibly have an admin with WP:ACCESS violations on his own userpage?? Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

28. Support. Strong contributor to Wikipedia already, his work (and Wikipedia overall) will only be enhanced by giving him a mop. —C.Fred (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
29. Support Never come across this user personally, but their experience looks great. Very active in vandal fighting (especially using automated tools), and has been for some time. Also active in New page patrolling. Would speed up the process a lot if he was given a block and delete button. One thing that he could use is more experience at Articles for Deletion, but that's understandable because it obviously isn't his top area of work. None of the votes in the oppose section have convinced me to not support. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 23:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
30. Support Seems very experienced in fighting vandalism, and I wouldn't expect him to misuse admin tools intentionally or from lack of experience. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 23:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
31. Support Experienced and qualified candidate. People who do cleanup work and fight vandalism often clear the way for those who focus more on content creation. It takes all kinds here. INeverCry (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
32. Support based on the strength of the nomination and the fine contributions of the candidate. If I see a sensible reason to oppose presented I may change my mind, but I have not seen it yet. HighInBC 23:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
33. Widr is a trustworthy editor who would be hugely beneficial to us as an administrator. This is a very easy support. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
34. Support - Looking at their record, I can see no real issue with making him an admin. Yes, they could have a stronger article creation record, yes they could have participated more in AfD. (One thing I'm not sure how to research is an editor's activity on AfC - to me, AfC is a more vital process than AfD, as it is where new content creators can be nurtured). Like Widr, I do a lot of anti-vandalism, which I consider very important. While I rarely get involved in AIV, another very important place. There is room at the admin level for all sorts of folks. I think they would make valuable contributions to helping with many of the mundane tasks admins are required to do. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
35. Support I had the pleasure of working with Widr on multiple occasions and believe strongly that he would be a great addition to the Wikipedia's line of administrators. Carbrera (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
36. Support I'm impressed both by their record and by their answers. (And being a stub-creating admin myself, I could never hold that against anyone.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
37. Support The perceived lack of substantive article contributions doesn't seem worrisome in the least regarding whether this user can be trusted with the tools. Vandalism to an existing good article brings the same net result as not creating a good article in the first place - zero good articles. Vandalism seems to be destined to occur at a faster rate than article creation could ever hope to achieve, so granting rights to someone who is clearly capable of, and interested in, fighting such damaging edits seems to be clearly in the best interest of the project. Antepenultimate (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
38. (edit conflict) Support More than meets my RFA standards. Mkdw^talk 00:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
39. Support. He began as a gnoming editor on musical charts and segued into anti-vandalism work - to begin with this lacked finesse, but the false positives seem to have dropped substantially since 2012. The volume of patrolling is impressive and they appear to be collaborative, and there are a number of stubs on Finnish music that show that Widr isn't just here to play whack-a-mole. I'd encourage Widr to sometimes slow down and add sources for unreferenced content as it is too easy to think of building Wikipedia as "someone else's problem" when you have rollback, deletion and blocking at your fingertips. Fences&Windows 01:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
40. Support -FASTILY 01:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
41. Support ^{Babymissfortune} 01:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
42. Support per DexDor's note above (with which I agree). No reason to think the candidate would misuse the tools. Miniapolis 01:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
43. Support, as a very qualified candidate. APerson (talk!) 02:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
44. Support. Great job on anti-vandalism. No one who works in this area will ever pass RFA again if they must have 100% accuracy on reverts. There are good reasons for an occasional mistake. If these can be corrected quickly, little if any harm is done. This is an area of great importance. Vandalism does not seem to be slacking off and it should be handled promptly. Some of it is difficult to detect but Widr is capable of dealing with this more subtle vandalism, and users who insert it. I think Widr is well attuned to what Wikipedia is about. Widr has done enough to show trustworthiness as well as competence. Good demeanor as well, which is an important trait for an administrator. Donner60 (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
45. Support --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 02:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
46. Strong Support - per Eric Corbett ..--Stemoc 02:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
47. Support per DoRD. Jianhui67 ^T★C 04:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
48. Support - Widr is a good egg, and the usual cantankerousness from the article-building elite doesn't sway me. "But he's got to have X number of articles fleshed out to NNN number of words". Please. This isn't a job interview and adminship is not a promotion, it's a position of trust. The project needs more admins willing to slug through unpleasant areas, not just ones who are here to collect GA and FA badges. Any mistakes he's made along the way (like the Seventh-day Adventist Hymnal issue noted below) are entirely forgivable given his years of hard work and spotless block record. I trust this future admin. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
49. Support - those neutrals (mainly) based on lack of experience do have a point, but in the answers and in the way he goes about things, I see someone who knows his limitations and is unlikely to overstep. --Stfg (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
50. Support - low on drama, competent in what they do, and I really like some of these answers.-- Elmidae (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
51. Support - solid editor, no concerns, opposes are weak. GiantSnowman 11:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
52. Support. Nice answer to my question. The candidate is unlikely to abuse the admin toolset. A cautious admin is much better than an over-confident one. I don't mind the low AfD contributions because the candidate does not intend to work in that area. sst✈ 13:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
53. —Kusma (t·c) 13:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
54. Support. Moved from neutral after response from MusikAnimal. ~ Rob^Talk 15:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
55. Strong support per MusikAnimal's comment below. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
56. Support. You got me, MusikAnimal. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
57. Support (moved from Neutral) I appreciate the I wouldn't work on this response to my question above, we need level headed administrators that aren't pressured to come up with a solution just because there is a problem. This is also a protest support against opposers who argue that he creates stubs - good for him. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
58. Support. I'm not sure whether this should be treated as a gesture of appreciation of the matters raised by MusikAnimal in the neutral section below, or me being satisfied with his responses to the questions, or a combination of both. Although I still stand by my comment in the neutral section below, I feel the balance favours support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
59. (edit conflict) Support - I'm very familiar with this volunteer's edits. This candidate is low drama and has a good clue about the project. The amount of article creation is ok. I would like this candidate to work on moving an article to good or featured status if time/energy allows. Keep up the great work! - tucoxn\^talk 17:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
60. Support. "Routine administrative work" is not as glamorous as creating oodles of GAs and FAs, but it still needs to get done, to be sure. Stubs are not a serious reason for me to oppose on the basis of insufficient content creation. I certainly respect the concerns of others about their AFD participation, but I see no issues here if they are simply not interested in heavy involvement in that area. Granting admin tools would be tremendously helpful for their line of work, and is certainly in the best interests of the community and the project. I fully understand the candidate's reluctance to get embroiled in the usual drama, but my advice is to dip your feet into this area anyway, just to get a feel for dispute resolution. Good luck, GAB^Hello! 17:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
61. Support - GAB has stated my views on this better than I can. Just because they can use the tools in areas where they do not have experience does not mean that they will. It is rather unnecessary to ask someone who does excellent patrol work to move into areas that they do not know well just because other admins edit in those areas. It does not seem unreasonable to me to have admins who specialize in certain areas, and others who specialize in others, and even some who are generalized; but to ask that all admins are specialized in everything is asking too much. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 18:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
62. Support - just the kind of editor we need to help deal with backlogs. MusikAnimal's nomination says it all, really. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
63. Support - I've encountered Widr around and found their editing to be reasonable, clueful and policy-based. After review, I have no concern with allowing them to take on administrator tasks. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
64. Support – between my own observations and MusikAnimal's points, I can't think of one good reason why Widr shouldn't be an Admin. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
65. Support for substantially the reasons given by MusikAnimal in their nominating statement and comment below. /wiae /tlk 18:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
66. Support for the answer given to my question, and his past track record. TJH2018 talk 18:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
67. Support What GAB said above. Would really help out having this editor assisting at AIV. Hy Brasil (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
68. Support. The candidate has a good background for the specific kinds of admin work that he says he will do, and this work fills a need. I understand how editors feel about experience in content creation, but for me, this comes down to experience in handling disputes. To evaluate that experience, I spent some time going through the candidate's user talk page archives. A bit of a learning curve in the oldest archives, which is completely appropriate, but after that I regularly see users showing up to question various things, so there is a track record in responding to complaints. And what I found quite consistently were responses that were concise, clueful, and clear. Good understanding of policies and community norms, and polite answers that get right to the point. I even found an instance where Widr replied that the other editor was correct and apologized. That's exactly what makes me trust an RfA candidate, and I'm very happy to support. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
69. Support The Quixotic Potato (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
70. Support - 200k edits (even more than me! :/ ) Clean block log. Happy with answers given so it's a yes. Mjroots (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
71. Support CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 20:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
72. Support, very polite, intelligent user. Withholding the toolset would be a travesty. Eman235/talk 20:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
73. 99.5% Support. I looked for a reason to oppose and could not find one. — Ched :  ?  21:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
74. Zzupport, I'm not unfamiliar with this user. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
75. Support: clean block log; account is easily old enough and has enough edits to trust; user does not appear to be someone to cause controversy; no reason I can see to ignore WP:AGF. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 22:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
76. Strong Support: For helping me to fight vandalism, and is a very trusted editor. I have zero problem with this. Jdcomix (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
77. Suppport - Good luck, man! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
78. Stephen 02:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
79. Support great record on cracking down on vandalism, there's an awful lot of it, also there's nothing wrong with a well written stub on a minor subject in my opinion. Atlantic306 (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
80. Support per above. Wldr's overall positive contributions to Wikipedia will broaden when granted the tools. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
81. Support based on past experience with him at UAA, and reputations of those who have supported and opposed him here. Daniel Case (talk) 06:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
82. Support - Seems like a reasonable editor. Reaper Eternal (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
83. Support Lengthy history with no evidence for concern. I started out similarly interest in a small subset of the admin duties and I hope Widr expands into other areas later. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
84. Support I have seen Widr's work from time to time and always assumed Widr was already an admin. Nothing I have seen gives me any cause for concern. If an editor this well grounded in Wikipedia wants to be an admin, it does cast some doubt on sanity, but I would be the last one to deny the experience. We certainly need more admins and I support the request.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
85. Strong Support Seasoned vandal fighter with a lot of experience. Trusted and welcoming member of the community who many look up to. Certainly a net benefit to the project. NottNott talk|contrib 10:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
86. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (orate) 11:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
87. Strong Support Has over many years and edits consistently demonstrated judgment. Across a wide range of the encyclopedia. A trusted editor who has made many valuable contributions. No reason to believe that he will change direction in the future. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
88. Support I wish there was an Assistant Admin position to try out someone like this who has worked hard on the project but only in a few specialty areas. But there isn't and I am willing to take a chance on this editor.--agr (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
89. Support - seems like an all-round good candidate. Blythwood (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
90. Support I have no reason to believe that this trustworthy, experienced candidate would not continue to focus his efforts in those areas where he has said he intends to focus -- and AIV needs extra hands. I also happen to find the opposes unconvincing at best. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
91. Support - I see no reason to believe that he would abuse the tools, and I think the fact that he creates articles (most articles here STARTED as stubs) is a good thing - not a bad thing. SQL^{Query me!} 16:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
92. Support - Cool and personable when challenged, their answer to Q.14 is spot on, and their answer to my own was considered and effortful (took the time to explain). fredgandt 16:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
93. Support - his user contributions speak volumes, I agree with his answers to the questions presented, and I don't believe admins should be all about "rescuing" users buried up in content disputes at controversial articles. The latter should be left to an "editorial review board" comprising qualified FA/GA editors who can make a decision that sticks without having to block, topic ban or site ban anyone. Atsme^📞📧 16:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
94. Support - After reading his responses to all questions, especially mine, i believe he is suited for admin tools. He has a good track record adn be trusted with making more positive contributions with admin tools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterysteppe (talk • contribs) 16:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
95. Support No concerns. Experienced and reasonable editor. clpo13_(talk) 16:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
96. Support – Qualified candidate. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
97. Support I have been holding off of voting because I shared some of the concerns of the opposers about the lack of content creation. This is not to say that Widr's content work is unimportant; 200-odd stubs is still impressive to me. I was concerned that having not been involved with any difficult content process, such as a GA review, FAC, or even rewriting a large and potentially contentious article, they might not find the appropriate response if they had to deal with a content related dispute. Having read their answers, I now trust that they will be circumspect enough that we can trust them with the tools. In other areas, of course, they are a phenomenal candidate, and more eyes at AIV and RFPP can never be a bad thing: I've been frustrated myself at the size of the backlogs there. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
98. Support content creation is nice to have but not an admin requirement as far as I'm concerned. This is a user who solidly handles situations involving disruptive or unhelpful edits/editors and has done nothing worrisome that would make me oppose. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
99. Sarong shaking support Welcome to the mop corps. ;-) Katie^talk 20:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
100. Support Dedicated contributor with good track and a clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
101. Support Good personal interactions with the candidate at AIV; has my trust. Spencer^T♦C 21:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
102. Support I am a generally a Wikipedia originalist. The original criteria for becoming an admin were that as user be active for more than two weeks, made useful contributions, and shown good will. The nominee meets these three requirements and according should be made an admin. - Hoplon (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
103. Support. From what I gather on this page, the candidate seems to be an editor who wants to do administrative work and is willing to communicate with other editors amicably. Why not. Deryck C. 22:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
104. Support. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

     Support. I find the reasons for oppose unconvincing, and without that I support. Switching to "neutral"; see below. Banedon (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

105. Support, based on review. I do believe the editor should acquire more content creation experience, but that does not hold up my ivote. Kierzek (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
106. Quite prolific. -- Mentifisto 02:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
107. Why not? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
108. Suppport. Happened upon chance to give my support, and will declare unambiguously that Widr is above and beyond the type of editor we need as admin here.– Gilliam (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
109. Support because Wikipedia needs more active admins, and Widr is more than competent as an editor. kennethaw88 • talk 05:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
110. Support – I have come across Widr time and time again at the AIV side of the project, and the stats speak for themselves; a highly dedicated editor, and will make a wonderful administrator. @Widr: good luck to you, I wish you all the very best! you deserve this. Best, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
111. Support per Stemoc and Opabinia regalis. Being a vandal fighter is productive. Not taking articles to GA or FA isn't listed at WP:NOTHERE although some opposers seem to think it is or should be. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
112. Support Pile on support - no issues.  Philg88 ^♦talk 13:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
113. Support Experienced editor with a good record. I think this person will be great with the tools. ZettaComposer (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
114. Support I think this candidate would indeed be a sensible and responsible administrator. --Janke | Talk 15:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
115. Support Net positive. JAGUAR  15:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
116. Support Tough vandalfighter, Remember The hawks are in the eyes of Wikimedia!(CitiesGamer66 (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC))
117. Support, just as Kierzek says above; some of the Opposes are valid & relevant, but in the end unpersuasive; cheers, Lindsay^Hello 17:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I liked the sound of the creation of hundreds of articles but then notice that the candidate is too coy to point to any of them as an example of good work. My impression is that they are all similar to Tuuliajolla. I'd like to see some evidence of competence with more substantial topics whose sources are in English. Andrew D. (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

   Comment Hardly coy; he draws attention himself to the fact that they "have mostly remained more or less stubbish so far." _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

   • Coy has various shades of meaning. In this case, the usage is "Reluctant to give details about something regarded as sensitive". Myself, I've written a bunch of pages which are still stubs. I would not have similar difficulty in pointing to one which I liked or considered worthy of inspection. For example, see aluminium powder, BMG movement or chocolate biscuit. If the candidate has written hundreds of stubs but can't or won't point to a single one of them then this indicates that he doesn't think much of them himself. Andrew D. (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

   Comment Frankly, I think this is an entirely ridiculous reason not to give someone adminship. So, he creates stubs. So what? They aren't vandalism and they aren't disruptive, so what's the big deal if he doesn't do a particularly incredible job? Any user can make a page, and it's not like giving him admin privileges would somehow make it any worse. Furthermore, not thinking much of oneself should not preclude one from being an admin. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 21:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

   Please do not badger editors. It's fine to ask questions about the rationale for someone's vote but it's not the place for arguments. The bureaucrat assessing this RfA will determine whether or not this reason is ridiculous. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

   With respect Liz I think this is very much the place to argue. This is not a vote but a discussion and by challenging each others rationales we give the 'crats the context they need. Just my take on RfA, which is based on the wording of the policy. HighInBC 23:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

   It is the place to argue. The rationals presented here influence sequent editors' opinions. Plus the anchor bias of the first oppose is surely very strong so it deserves extra scrutiny. Counterarguments help people weigh the pros and cons of an argument so that their own comments and !votes are more informed and therefore valuable. This includes helping the closing bureaucrat make their decision, as HighInBC mentions. It's not the place to quarrel or badger (which is different from arguing in the logical sense) but R. A. Simmons did neither of those. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

   I encourage rasimmons to speak his mind as, even though he is new here, he gets a vote like everyone else. As he does not seem to have created any pages yet, he perhaps does not appreciate what admins and others tend to do to them. For example, I recently started the page Colonel Johnson. As far as I'm concerned, this is coming along nicely but that's not good enough for the admin Fram who scolded me at length recently for not doing more. Admins such as Fram don't just scold; they also pull and delete articles which don't meet their high standards. As admins wield such power, it seems important to me that they understand the finer points of article creation and construction. Fram has such competence and so keeps us on our toes. Editors who are still learning the ropes are not ready for this. Andrew D. (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

   Andrew Davidson, I realise now that my comment may have been a bit poorly worded. Thanks for assuming good faith (and defending my statement), though, and I appreciate the explanation. I certainly see your point better now. I think that, looking at the nominee's record, I doubt that he would be too strict regarding page deletion, but I understand your concern for sure. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 23:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

2. Oppose, it would be a mistake to make a stub creator an admin. Eric Corbett 22:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

   Is there any reason to think that an editor who has created stubs is more likely to misuse admin tools (or less likely to make good use of admin tools) than an editor who has never created a stub? DexDor ^(talk) 23:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

   That's obviously not what Eric said or meant. Please don't waste our time with such silly straw men. Andrew D. (talk) 23:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

   My comment was intended to prompt Eric to clarify what he meant - e.g. if he really meant "oppose because the candidate hasn't created lots of FA/GAs (and an admin needs that experience because...)". If "a stub creator" isn't interpreted as "an editor who has created stubs" then there are several ways it could be interpreted. However, I see comment below that he can't reply. DexDor ^(talk) 09:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

   The exact details are at WP:RESTRICT, "...topic banned from making edits concerning the RFA process anywhere on the English Wikipedia. As an exception, he may ask questions of the candidates and express his own view on a candidate in a specific RFA (in the support, oppose, or neutral sections), but may not engage in any threaded discussions relating to RFA. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments in violation of this remedy, and may enforce it with blocks if necessary." Andrew D. (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

   @Eric: Might I ask why you say that? R. A. Simmons ^Talk 23:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

   I think Eric prefers that an admin have dozens of featured articles. Personally I am far more concerned with how they interact with others. HighInBC 00:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

   Eric Corbett is allowed to vote at RfA, but not engage in discussions. You will not get a response. sst✈ 03:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

   In a way, I envy him: I wish I could say anything I wanted and !vote in any way I chose and not be obligated to explain. BMK (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

   I am not 100% sure, but there may be some limitations on how much they participate in RfA. Not sure if that is still the case but I think it was at some point. By the way, you are not really obligated to explain anything either. HighInBC 14:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

   Perhaps not, but the comments you get when you don't are generally not very pleasant. BMK (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

   HighInBC, you are right to be concerned with how the candidate will interact with others, and I answered it in my comment below, according to what the candidate admitted: He will interact, but will always avoid conflict and confrontation. He won't come to the rescue of anyone in a discussion. What a disappointment. What we have here is a button pusher. Prhartcom (talk) 06:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

   Avoids conflict, CHECK, does not want to take sides CHECK, pushes the buttons we need admins to push CHECK. Sounds like a good candidate. HighInBC 14:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

   Oppose I rarely oppose admin candidates but I'm not convinced that this editor can be a good admin considering their AfD stats and poor contents creation. From my experience, editors who only create stubs are less familiar with basic policies and guidelines, including WP:CV and WP:BLP. Those that rarely participate at WP:AfD are less familiar with WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS and other subject-specific notability guidelines. There is no how they will use the deletion button correctly. They tend to make poor judgments during content disputes. Anyone can fight vandalism here on Wikipedia as long as they know what count as vandalism but this does not simply means that they are familiar with basic policies and guidelines. It is not an evidence that they would make a good admin. 200,000+ edits count is never a criterion for admiship. It is never an evidence that they are qualified to be an admin. It's only an evidence that they are very active on Wikipedia and we appreciate that. There are hundreds of editors here on Wikipedia with 200,000+ edits count. Does it mean all of them would make a good admin or they are familiar with basic policies and guidelines? Regrettably, I'm not seeing enough reasons to support this RfA. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Moved to support. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

   Id say that considering Widr has not stated that they intend to participate at AFD and would focus on their countervandalism duties, this argument is a bit off point. Blackmane (talk) 10:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

   Please, WP:AGF. Admins are expected to be diverse. I'm not here to engage in unnecessary argument. I'd rather invest my energy in something more productive than unnecessary argument. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

   It doesn't seem to me like he's not assuming good faith. He said it was "off point", not vandalism. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 16:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

   I'm a support voter but I think Wikicology has a fair point (w/ precedent), to decide that he doesn't want to have admins that he doesn't trust to exercise all the typical powers that admins do. I tend to trust otherwise-strong admin candidates who promise (or hint) that they won't touch parts that they don't know enough about -- feeling that desysopping and reverting damage is easier than people think -- but I think Wikico's comment is on point. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

   I do not seek an argument nor do i wish to seem like I'm bagering thr opposes. I sought to point out that opposing based on something the candidate has said they weren't going to do was a bit odd. That's not to say that they don't intend on becoming involved where the delete button is to be used, but we should assume good faith in the candidate's commitment to do their due diligence before stepping into unfamiliar waters. Blackmane (talk) 07:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

3. Oppose contributions are mostly Twinkle spam. Will probably make mistakes and bite newbies without realising. No thanks - admins need to be good communicators and not just be button whackers. Anyone can revert "poop" from an article, but these so-called vandal fighters never seem to notice the stuff that really matters. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

   But I don't understand, in his 1000s of edits are is there evidence of him biting newcomers? Also, how is the candidate responsible for the results of that experiment wherein errors were inserted into Wikipedia -- more than any one of us, including you? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

4. Oppose Per my longtime stance that an administrator, who may referee between content contributors who care very much about what the article should say, should have "skin in the game" by having some significant content contribution. Otherwise, it's all theoretical. No disrespect to the candidate, who I am sure is a fine person and valuable contributor. It's just that I have opinions on the qualifications to be an administrator.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

   (Based on the candidates past edits and their answers to the questions) I don't think the candidate is intending to be refereeing between (GF) content contributors any time soon - xe is more likely to be protecting the content by fighting vandals, spammers, clear POV-pushers etc. DexDor ^(talk) 23:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

   That's not sufficient. "{S)he will get the experience they need to be an administrator after they become one" doesn't fly here. As an admin, he'd be expected to be able to, and would be already be empowered to, intervene in those kinds of disputes from the first day. The candidate obviously can already do the things he intends to be doing, since it's pretty much all he does. In a side window, while doing other things.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

5. Oppose Not yet. Please take some articles to GA or FA, preferably in controversial areas. One can't understand Wikipedia without mixing it up in article space. Thank you for your contributions. Hugh (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
6. Oppose: Insufficient content work, very low participation in WP:XFDs and WP:Noticeboards, and low involvement in policy discussion and formation; too single-minded a focus on one activity. [Note: under 400 posts to Talk namespace, and only 65 to Wikipedia_talk namespace.[1]] As I said at the last RfA like this: Take a lengthy break from anti-vandal work; that's a "sexy" area that gets lots of attention, and it will not fall apart in your absence. Demonstrate extended, constructive involvement in the areas in which admins actually operate and must make decisions. Be more involved in content work and the research and particular types of consensus formation that it requires; a long-standing problem at Wikipedia is "professional admins" who are not here to work on the actual encyclopedia but on "policing" the system as a system, pursuing a means to an end as if it were an end in and of itself. It is not. Admins of this sort cause a large number of problems because they approach editorial disputes from a "shut up any noise perturbing the system" perspective instead of a "resolve this in the best way for the readership and community" perspective.

   I have no serious issues with the candidate's work when viewed in isolation – he's good at what he does – but it does not exist in isolation, and it's very, very narrow; he does not require admin tools to do it if this is all he's going to do, which appears to be the case. Analogy: If you apply for a systems and network administrator job, and you are the #1 best Python coder in the entire world, but you have no experience managing networks, configuring operating systems and their services, writing shell and Perl scripts, scheduling backups, testing system security, creating user accounts, etc., then you will not get the job. Content: It needn't be GA/FA; it is more valuable to the project to create a large number of sourced, notable stubs, or to work up a middling number of B-class articles out of poor stubs, than to tweak a handful of articles to be "perfect".
   PS: This candidate is a perfect example of why we need to unbundle more admin tools, and create subcategories of quasi-admins with the ability to use certain "dangerous" tools but only within constrained boxes (e.g. ability to block, but only for vandalism).
    — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

   In Cyphoidbomb's words, this fortunately is not a job, it's a position of trust. There's numerous other admins who work solely in counter-vandalism, every day, yet there's still a backlog. Enter Widr — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

   You're making my case for me. We have a great deal of evidence that the candidate can be trusted to fight vandals well, but very, very little that he has the experience to be trusted with the tools. I was initially prepared to support, but he simply has near-zero participation in anything at all with which admins are expected to be intimately familiar, except that one thing. Our other admins who are antivandalism-focused did not have such a lack of breadth when they applied, and lack of breadth this marked is a very common reason – a conventional reason – for opposing. (Please see also the article Analogy, and re-familiarize yourself with the concept; analogies are used to illustrate similarities as an aid to understanding, not make a case that two things are identical in every way.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

7. Oppose - literally per everything SMcCandlish has said.--John Cline (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
8. Oppose: standing on, echoing and agreeing with the concerns of Ritchie333 and SMcCandlish. I have examined the candidate's work for myself... Fylbecatulous talk 11:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
9. Oppose - per SMcCandlish and Wehwalt, among others. Content contributions, whether or not they are to GA level or not, is the point of the project. If you haven't been involved in it, you can't understand why the various problems that admins are expected to deal with happen. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I want to support this strong anti-vandal candidate, but I'm concerned about Widr's AfD stats. Only 19 AfD !votes ever, and only 1 in the last 12 months. I'm a little confused by the points in the nom statement and one of the votes(misread vote, struck) arguing that Widr has a strong AfD background. I don't think that's an accurate assessment. I could be persuaded otherwise based on how the questions and other remarks turn out as this RfA develops. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

   Meh. The record for those 19 looks good to me. If RfA voters keep insisting that every candidate have massive experience in every facet of Adminship, there will be no candidates. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

   I agree that the record looks good for those 19, which is why I went neutral instead of oppose. AfD is just that important. As Widr himself indicates, while he sees his area of participation staying pretty consistent, a lot can change after you get the mop. See, the problem for me is that Widr's experience in admin areas is mostly confined to areas with very little discretion. While that means errors stand out a lot easier, it also means the rules are much easier to learn. AfD and similar processes test discretionary understanding of policies much more rigorously. I believe there is the same rationale behind wanting article writing experience: A lot of different policies and guidelines go into evaluating whether an article is notable or good, whereas about two or three fairly similar ones factor into the vast majority of AIV cases. I don't mean to denigrate those tasks: They need to be done, and increasingly we need more people to do them. Even so, my concern is that since we're giving him the ability to delete, we be assured he know when to delete as of today, rather than as of 12 months ago. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

   Neutral - I've seen Widr around A LOT on Wikipedia, and he makes very good contributions. However, Widr's AFD record is causing me to put on the brakes for now and sit in "no man's land" for a bit. I'm going to examine Wildr's CSD record (List of all CSD notifications left by Widr) and his contributions a bit more in-depth, and make a decision afterwards. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC) --Moved to support

   • Comment The reasoning here seems a little thin. We should look at what he does well, and his skills in working against vandalism are very strong. I don't think that it's a requirement for an admin to work in every sector of Wikipedia, and I've certainly seen many who essentially focus on a single section. It's clear that he has some experience in AfD, and that's enough for me. He probably won't be doing much AfD anyway, so what's the big deal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasimmons (talk • contribs) 21:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

   Rasimmons - I agree with you to some extent; I absolutely do not expect any user to contribute to every single area of Wikipedia. Lets not be silly, here :-). However, administrator tools come with multiple technical abilities, and I don't believe that it's unreasonable to expect that RfA candidates demonstrate their knowledge and long-term proficiency with the intended use of the tools that would be granted. One such tool is the deletion of articles. A solid AFD record (to me) is a fair and reasonable expectation; AFDs demonstrate a candidate's involvement in a common process, and they provide a good way for the community to understand the candidate's thought process with common Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I will echo what I previously said: I'm simply halting the brakes. Not having a strong AFD record is not a means for an "oppose" in my opinion. I just need to examine Wldr's contributions in other areas to determine that his understanding in the article deletion area is solid. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

2. Neutral The editor's reverted a lot of edits by vandals, but has very little experience in content creation or research - over five years or so they have created various stubs, but apparently no substantive work or engagement in GAs etc. I'm therefore not convinced I would trust their judgement as an admin outside the narrow area of counter-vandalism. Hchc2009 (talk)
   • Comment - not sure why everyone is so hell bent on getting articles to GA. I would rather have a hundred stubs than a GA. Let the serious researchers work on the GA's. This shouldn't be held against the candidate Gbawden (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
     • Gbawden, I should probably have added a comma in, I suspect: "but apparently no substantive work, or engagement in GAs etc." My concern is that I'd prefer a potential administrator to have experience in writing content, or evidence that they've engaged in debate over content with other editors. That doesn't have to be demonstrated by having written, or reviewed, Good Articles; rather, engaging in that sort of dialogue with other editors would be an example of the sort of evidence I'd typically be looking for. I can't see that in this application, thus my concern. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
3. Neutral An average of one edit per page. Across 200K edits. Clearly, the candidate is built only for routine administrative work and has no interest whatsoever in building an encyclopedia. One would expect an administrator to have walked in the shoes of the editors he is administering. And with a statement like, "I avoid such situations and have never been drawn to unnecessary drama" is utterly disappointing, providing evidence he does not wish to interact with the community in a meaningful way. No one should trust this candidate to have any wisdom to make dispute resolution calls. We probably can't trust him to answer MoS, guideline, or policy questions. The stats prove that the idea of focusing on building a single article of at least 500 words, perfectly sourced and formatted, is the last thing the candidate has a desire to do. However, the candidate does know how to touch one article and move on to the next one better than anyone. Clearly, the candidate is built only for routine administrative work. So maybe he should be given the tools for that reason alone. But when it's my turn to be raked over the coals at an RfA, I will have a much more well-rounded resume than this. Prhartcom (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

   I think I speak for all wikignomes when I say that claiming the editor has "has no interest whatsoever in building an encyclopedia" because they have a low edit count per page is dismissive to the point of being offensive. It takes many people with different interests and personalities to build an encyclopedia like this and those people fulfill a wide variety of different and necessary roles. Jason Quinn (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

   Agreed. Will also point out that the arbitrary requirement that editors must build X-quality article is inherently biased against editors who might speak English as a second or third language, as well as against editors such as myself who have attention deficit issues, but who might otherwise be very good in areas that other admins aren't interested in participating in. We all have our unique abilities and areas of interest. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

   Regarding edits per-page: Like many statistics, it is not very telling, and in the case of a vandal fighter is expected to be very low. I have an average of 1.5 edits per page, but several GAs and a FA. What about Materialscientist? 700,000+ contributions, mostly to counter-vandalism, but still has written numerous GAs and FAs. Surely you see there is no correlation — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

   I don't disagree with any of that. I happen to have more respect for administrators who not only push buttons but are wise at community leadership, diplomatic at conflict resolution, and scholarly at content building. Prhartcom (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

4. Neutral With no conflict history and minimal instances where they would have been asked to apply policies, I don't have enough information to decide if there's a risk of abusing the tools. No amount of automated edits would address this. Geogene (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

   Neutral [moved to support] With respect to anyone who says experience can be picked up on the job, clue cannot be meaningfully assessed based on stub article edits or AIV calls. If the admin toolset only covered a narrow area of focus, this would be less of an issue, but that's not the way it is structured. That is why candidates need to be willing and able to do more than just routine admin work in a very narrow area of focus at all times. In the absence of a clear demonstration that the candidate has a proper understanding of community policy/norms, and can apply that understanding in practice where necessary, I am too concerned to support. That will largely rest on Q&A as to how he might approach certain situations. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

   Neutral: Moved to support I can't help but be swayed by those pointing out the candidates narrow expertise with anti-vandalism. While I'd hate to be one of the "article-building elite" I've seen mentioned in the support section, and while I agree that strong experience with article building isn't a necessary attribute of mopmanship, I can't say I'm yet comfortable with the trend of article creation sans article building, and I don't know if such a trend would sway one in deciding, say, if a poorly built article should be deleted or not. I'd love to support, but I don't know if I do yet../ Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

   Neutral (moved to support), probably leaning oppose. I don't really like the idea of an editor who has no experience with conflict jumping immediately into the role of blocking vandals and problematic editors. I certainly don't fault Widr for shying away from conflict and drama, but I can't support without seeing evidence that he can keep a cool head. That's one of the most important traits for an admin. ~ Rob^Talk 07:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

   @MusikAnimal: Would you mind responding to this as nominator? Did you see anything in your review of Widr's edits that indicates he would handle conflict well? ~ Rob^Talk 15:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

   I don't think Widr is looking to make difficult blocks of seasoned editors as a result of an AN/I discussion. Like me, his focus is on protecting the project from vandalism. Related blocks, protections and deletions are generally indisputable and any resulting conflict would usually involve revoking the user's talk page access. The conflicts you refer to are avoidable as a vandal-fighter and as an admin. I know because I am one of them, who purposefully has a very low edit count at AN/I, the only AfD's I close are speedy delete, etc. Wikipedia is a blacklog and Widr will take a big chunk out of it. When I can't monitor AIV during peak hours in the US I'm begging fellow admins on IRC to help. Widr works during these hours and I'm confident a backlog will become a thing of the past — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

   I can dig it/ Tpdwkouaa (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

   Neutral, pending more review of questions/answers/etc - leading towards "protest support" against oppose votes on the basis of not enough large article creation. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC) moved to support — xaosflux ^Talk 16:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

5. Neutral leaning oppose: because of the example linked by Andrew Davidson above. Yes, said IP editor may not vote in RfAs, but one should still assume good faith and explain why the revert is happening in the edit summary. I think reverting in this manner without an explanation is rude. Looking through Widr's edit history I found several reverts which I would've preferred to see reasoning for, e.g. this one. I would've preferred to see something like "the word 'relations' is used elsewhere in the article" in the edit summary, and the revert should not have been marked as minor either. I guess when one does as many anti-vandalism reverts as Widr does, this kind of thing is bound to happen, but it still should not happen at all. Banedon (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

General comments

At [2], you inadvertently restored some vandalism that was originally carried out in September. The edit changed the language from one false value to another. The hymnal is quite obviously not in Sesotho and I'm just wondering if an opportunity was missed to correct that. I'm inclined to support you, but as an open queStion to everyone here, would we normally expect a vandal reversion to take a bit more care over exactly what was being reverted? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it should have been caught earlier by someone in the past six months, given the blatant edit summary. Vandalism reversal undoes the most recent change(s). Sometimes, unfortunately, it gets reverted to another wrong version. Many times this can go unnoticed, as not everyone can be knowledgeable enough to make decisions on every subject. I've done it, seen it done over me, and have over-reverted highly experienced editors who have missed a minor detail.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: "hymnal is quite obviously not in Sesotho". Likewise, another part of the change restored was back to United States from Malawi. Isn't hymnal quite obviously in the United States and not Malawi? I think you're assume all counter-vandalism patrollers would have enough knowledge about Christianity to know the difference between "chichewa" to "sesotho". You're not talking about a change from English to Sesotho. Most counter-vandalism isn't conducted by patrollers only in their area of interest or knowledge. It's patrolled by recent changes regardless of familiarity with the subject. Mkdw^talk 02:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The edit in question was performed using STiki which states, 'Regardless of the issue, anything that requires domain-specific expertise to resolve is probably best classified as "innocent" or "pass".' STiki contains lots of AI so that it normally provides a list of suspect edits and the patroller then just pushes a button: Vandalism, Innocent, Pass, &c. The patroller is supposed to make a deeper investigation where appropriate but I'm guessing that the candidate doesn't do this much because they say they are "often ... doing ten other things at the same time" – watching a movie, writing email, Facebook, whatever. This is presumably why they have such a high position on the leaderboard. You don't get to be number 1 by taking time over each individual case, do you? Andrew D. (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Every vandal-fighter has hit rollback when they should have hit good-faith at some point. It's also not very difficult work, so one can easily do other things in tandem. I know I do, just don't tell my employer that =P I respect your concern but this is nothing out of the ordinary, and the greater contributions much outweigh the few tiny mistakes — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• If you look at those leaderboard stats, it seems that the candidate is more likely to assume vandalism and less likely to AGF than his rivals. Andrew D. (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• STiKi promotes itself as being AI with a 20–30% success degree of offering suggestions for vandalism review but after 60 suggestions from STiKi I only found 7% to be patent vandalism; another 40% were rolled back as AGF (bonehead) edits. There are STiKi users that are slamming 50% as being vandalism and 0% as AGF edits. This is impossible. Any user that is on the leaderboard mentioned above with these kinds of statistics should, IMHO, be put on probation from use of the tool until they are properly trained to recognize vandalism. Widr who is up for nomination here is only tagging 1% as AGF rollbacks. The creator of the tool only tags 1% as AGF rollbacks too. Anybody tagging more than 20% as patent vandalism should be put on probation and re-trained. I think widr is tagging about the right number as vandalism, but is skipping out on rolling back the AGF edits that need reverting too. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Checkingfax, the rate of vandalism on STiKi depends a ton on how many people are doing vandalism patrols at the time (and whether it's a high vandal time). There are times when nearly 75% of all the edits it finds will be either vandalism or bonehead edits by people who already got one or more AGF messages recently. These are the times when STiKi is mostly finding edits that are 1-2 minutes old. Then when the most recent changes have been reviewed, when the biggest active vandals have been blocked, etc., STiKi will tend to give mostly borderline edits that are hours or days old. From my experience in using it for a few months, no single session is representative of what will happen in using it over a long period of time, and the last few days have mostly been the latter (clean) experience, maybe because of added attention to STiKi from this RfA? (happy to move this to either this RfA talk or STiKi talk if this is moving too far away from the RfA). Best, -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Nah, that was a good post, central to a concern raised about the candidate's alleged behavior. I'm pretty sure that if the candidate were abusing anti-vandal tools, this would have been noted a long time ago, however.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I've checked some random batches of his edits from January and February. The candidate is doing good work reverting vandalism. ϢereSpielChequers 10:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)