Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Evad37

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

Evad37

Final: (212/15/6) - Closed as successful by Useight at 00:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination

Evad37 (talk · contribs) – My fellow Wikipedians, it is my great joy today to introduce Evad37, although he hardly needs an introduction. An active editor since 2012, Evad37 is an extensive article writer; he has created somewhere around 50 articles, many focusing on Australian content. He's also a very skilled writer: most notable are probably the Featured Articles (Clackline Bridge (for which he received the Four Award), Fremantle Prison, Kwinana Freeway, and Forrest Highway) along with numerous GAs and DYKs strewn throughout his talkpage archives. Evad37 put those skills to use by helping to kick off the recent revival of the Signpost, most notably by stepping in as EIC to resurrect the project. Evad37 continues to write and contribute for The Signpost, and also authored a script to make publishing each issue much less onerous.

Evad37 also works behind the scenes, such as by helping out with the massive portal redesign and cleanup effort begun last year. Of particular note are the modules and related templates he created that have together reduced the once-absurd amount of Portal subpages by thousands, if not tens of thousands; they are linked here. Similarly skillfully, Evad37 crafted Module:Mapframe/Module:Infobox mapframe/Template:Infobox mapframe, used over 100,000 times in mainspace. Among his many user scripts, Evad37 rewrote rater, created MoveToDraft, and now maintains duplinks. He is, however, probably best known as the trusted author of XFDcloser, which every day saves countless editors countless time closing countless XfDs. Evad37 quickly responds to issues or new feature requests and is always ready to be kind, courteous, and helpful to his fellow editors.

Aside from showing useful technical know-how, all this backend work shows how much the community already trusts, nay depends on, Evad37. Nearly every regular closer of XfDs implicitly trusts him, and I'm asking you here to join me here in doing so explicitly. Evad37 is an excellent writer and clearly understands the ins-and-outs of what is required to produce quality content. He's already been entrusted with our paper-of-record and has for years been a tireless contributor of all stripes. The community could use more sysops like Evad37 — trustworthy, clueful, and understanding of both content and technical aspects of the project. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Rschen7754

I have been aware of Evad37's work since 2012. He started out working on Australian road articles, eventually starting the Australian Roads WikiProject. He has written several FAs and GAs mostly related to Australian roads, including Kwinana Freeway, Great Eastern Highway, and Forrest Highway, expanding out to other topics such as Fremantle Prison. Moreover, throughout his work with the Signpost and with work on templates and scripts (including those affecting admins) he has demonstrated a good knowledge of policy.

However, the selling point for me is how Evad37 has managed to maintain a calm demeanor in heated discussions and to give a measured response. In addition, he is willing to step into many different areas to do whatever tasks are needed (examples: templates like {{maplink}}, the Signpost, scripting, even stepping in to make route marker graphics).

It took years of convincing, but Evad37 finally agreed to seek the admin tools. I firmly believe that he will be a benefit to the project with them. --Rschen7754 01:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Czar

If many hands make light work, Evad's scripts have given each admin more hands, making admin work more accessible and less onerous. The XFD logs of any day and the hundreds who run XFDcloser manifest the daily and continual trust our community places in Evad. As an early tester of his scripts, I'd like to underscore what tremendous foresight Evad has shown in dependably developing admin-facing tools with minimal disruption to the encyclopedia and, oddly enough, without even having access to admin tools himself. I'm confident that Evad would bring the same artful vigilance to his admin work. We speak of mops when Evad makes veritable Shop-Vacs, among our very best editor-facing tools. Sign me up for his next act.

Beyond coding, Evad's talk page typifies his clueful generosity, willingness to pitch in, and patient, considerate problem-solving. For many years now, his demeanor and manner of engaging in dialogue has indicated that he respects and is ready to bear the responsibilities that come with adminship. Please join me in recruiting Evad to be your fellow admin. czar 22:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, I accept this nomination. I have never engaged in paid editing, and the only other accounts I have ever used are User:Evad37alt and User:KMLbot (as listed on my user page). - Evad37 [talk] 00:37, 11 February 2019 (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: My expertise is mostly on the technical side of things, and that would be where I intend to work. This would include the creation and testing of scripts for admins. While I’ve proved that it is possible to develop such scripts without access to the admin tools, having access would make development a bit easier.
I would apply for interface administrator, if successful with this RfA, so I could help with gadget and user js/css requests (example). Other areas I would be interested in include non-article speedy deletions (for example, unused portal subpages listed at WT:WikiProject Portals/Tasks#Requests for Admin assistance), protections for high-risk templates and modules, and fixing mismatched protections between templates and TemplateStyles (which should have same protection level if possible per the Wikipedia:TemplateStyles guidelines).
I am not intending to undertake admin work where I don’t have much experience. For example, I am not going to suddenly start doing AfD (or other XfD) closes, nor would I suddenly start acting on reports at noticeboards like CCI, UAA or AN3.
If in the future I do decide to venture in to more admin areas, it would be very slowly and cautiously. I would first participate in a non-administrative capacity, and read (or re-read) the relevant policies and guidelines. If I were to still be at all unsure, I would ask an administrator active in that area for advice before proceeding. I would initially only undertake a small number of admin actions, listen to any feedback I’m given, and endeavour to learn from any mistakes I might make (since I am only human).

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

A: In article-space, my contributions to Fremantle Prison and its related sub-articles. It took about ten months worth of hard work to improve the article from this state to a featured article, including making many trips to the library to lookup hard-copy sources, and figuring out how to summarise the vast quantity of information that exists on this topic. The end result was an excellent wealth of knowledge spread across seven articles (main article, plus architecture, history, staff and prisoners, riots, Fremantle Prison riot, and executions).
XFDcloser is my best script, as already noted by my nominators. This started out as an "I could probably do that" challenge for FfD, responding to this request. After many, many hours, several versions, and a lot of fulfilled feature requests, the script now works for all the XfD venues and is very widely used. I’ve received a fair amount of praise for it, and I learnt a lot while making and refining it.
I’m also quite pleased with the templates and modules I’ve made and contributed to for WikiProject Portals (see navbox), which have helped make the portal-automation revolution possible. This includes those for transcluding Did you know? and In the news entries (Module:Selected recent additions and Module:Selected current events), automatic colouring of box headings whilst ensuring accessibility compliance (Module:Box-header), content slideshows (Module:Random slideshow and Module:Excerpt slideshow), plus various improvements to Module:Excerpt (including code that makes sure non-free images don’t get transcluded to portal pages).

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: Yes, I have sometimes been stressed following interactions or responses from other users. If something makes me angry, upset, or othewise stressed, I’ll take some time before responding (possibly overnight) to make sure I’m calm, and that I understand the point the other using is making. In the heat of the moment, it can be surprisingly easy to miss. I might also choose to disengage, or not engage in the first place, if it doesn’t seem anything positive would come from further interaction. When engaging with others, I always try to stay near the top of Graham’s triangle, and keep in mind that there’s a real person behind the username or IP address. And importantly, I don’t assume I’m always right – I’m more than willing to be convinced that another approach may be better.
For example, I received this barnstar of diplomacy from Tamwin, in relation to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Portals § RfC: Adopt as a MoS guideline. While I was initially a bit upset at the negative reactions there, I slept on it and in the morning was able to respond calmly and constructively.
I’ve also been stressed upon realizing I have made a very silly mistake, which inevitably comes from other users pointing it out. All that I can do in such situations is to apologise, undo or otherwise remedy the situation (if someone else hasn’t already done so), and try to learn from and not repeat the same mistake (and possibly to be prepared for a trout).

---

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 questions from DannyS712

4. Given your experience making user scripts, including scripts that make admin-actions (most notably XfD closer), to what extent do you plan on performing admin-related tasks semi-automatically?

A: Not every admin action needs to be semi-automated, just like not every edit needs to be semi-automated. But I do plan on using existing, well-tested tools such as Twinkle's admin functions. Over time, I suspect my usage will increase as I find situations that could benefit from extra semi-automation, and make tools for them (e.g. I've previously thought about a script for RFPP that would handle both posting a response and applying protections) – but I would make sure to thoroughly test any new tool, and check its semi-automatic actions very carefully. - Evad37 [talk] 01:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

5. You expressed an interest in seeking IAdmin rights. To what extent, if at all, would you plan on performing related edits (edits to mediawiki and user .js, .css, and .json) semi-automatically?

A: I don't think there's much scope for semi-automation with IADMIN actions – editing css, json, and particularly js pages needs to be done extremely carefully, especially for the site-wide mediawiki pages that are loaded by very large numbers of users, or by every user. - Evad37 [talk] 01:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from SemiHypercube

:6. Since you seem to be a more technical kind of person, do you intend on applying for interface administrator rights if this is successful?

A:Never mind, I didn't read the nomination statement closely enough, he says he will right there. SemiHypercube 01:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Hhkohh

7. If you are an admin, will you use your alternative account to test your script?

A: That really depends on the script. For scripts where there's no difference in functionality between admins and non-admins, I would probably just use my normal account. Where there is a difference, or if I suspect that another script, gadget, or a user preference is responsible for bugs, I might use my alternative account – but only for testing purposes, and not for performing "real" actions. - Evad37 [talk] 01:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Espresso Addict

8. What do you consider to be the most important quality of an administrator?

A: Good communication skills. While not the only important quality, being able to explain your actions or point of view, listen to and understand what others are saying, discuss differences calmly and rationally, and treat fair criticisms as a learning opportunity rather than the start of a boxing match, goes a long way to stopping disputes from arising or escalating. Unlike most admin actions, bad interactions with other editors can’t easily undone by another admin, and can drive contributors away from the project. - Evad37 [talk] 03:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Lourdes

9. There is a relevant point of view that you have insignificant administrative experience. What would be your view on the same?

A: While I may not have experience in all areas, I do not intend to work all areas. I indicated in my answer to Question 1 how I would approach areas where I don't have a lot of experience, so what it really comes down to is trust: If as-yet-undecided editors trust me to exercise care, have good judgement, conduct myself appropriately, and be a net positive. - Evad37 [talk] 05:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Dolotta

10. What area or areas of the English Wikipedia are you the weakest?

A: One of my weakest areas is copyediting, especially when it comes to my own work. No matter how hard I try, there seems to always be something in my writing that needs correcting – e.g. spelling, phrasing, compliance with some obscure WP:MOS point. Luckily, there are plenty of WikiGnomes willing to come along and tidy things up. - Evad37 [talk] 11:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

This answer copyedited at 22:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Additional questions from RhinosF1

11. You don't seem to use automated editing tools much in the mainspace, what are your thoughts on them?

A: I’ve got nothing against automated tools in the mainspace, if others find them useful – I just personally find I’m able to get along without such tools, for the most part. If you look at my contribution history, you’ll see the tools I do use are mostly are Twinkle for reverting edits, and Hotcat for adding/removing categories. Another tool with some automation, that doesn’t leave a trace in the logs, is the RefToolbar (specifically its a nice url and isbn lookup features, though the values they pull do have to be checked, and sometimes reformatted). - Evad37 [talk] 11:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

12. What would you say to users concerned about the narrowness of the areas you intend to work with?

A: I would ask them to consider whether my adminship would be a net-benefit to the project. Even if I’m not going to be working on your favourite admin backlog, I believe I can still make valuable contributions to the project as an admin, and am unlikely to cause harm. In the future, I may branch out to other areas (with great care, as per my Question 1 answer). - Evad37 [talk] 11:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Follow Up Question: Do you think this affects your ability to develop scripts & gadgets like XfD closer in any way?

A: Your use of the word "this" in this question is a bit vague, so please let me know if I'm not interpreting your meaning correctly.

• As a follow up to Question 12, "this" could refer to the narrowness of the areas you intend to work with or the last part of my response, [in] the future, I may branch out to other areas. In either case, I don't see the breadth or narrowness of my admin activity having much impact on my ability to develop scripts and gadgets, except for the amount of time it might take (but as a volunteers, we are free to choose where we spend our time, and how much of it we spend).
• In a more general sense, "this" may refer to access to the admin and interface-admin tools. As I mentioned in my answer to Question 1, it is certainly possible to develop scripts for admins without access to the tools. For single admin actions, it isn't too hard to test as a non-admin (the API returns a "permission denied" error, which you know it won't for admins). For more complicated cases, with multiple admin actions in succession, for example delete and then salt a page, testing it suddenly becomes much more tricky (though still possible, e.g. if you make a mock API object).
  Some users have suggested using a test wiki for testing scripts, but this isn't ideal. https://test.wikipedia.org and https://test2.wikipedia.org are not "An area to play with administrator's tools", the admin tool testing wikis don't have the templates, modules, MediaWiki namespace scripts, etc. that English Wikipedia has. https://en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/ is a possibility, since it is configured like enwiki and admin tools can be requested, but it is primarily for testing by Wikimedia developers, so when debugging errors you would have to work out whether it is an error in your script or an error in the test version of the MediaWiki software.
  Having admin and int-admin tools would also allow me to fix bugs and make other updates to any gadgets I develop without having to make edit requests on the talk page or at WP:IANB.
  While I don't have an absolutely unavoidable need as I can request admin assistance (e.g. for edit requests, or as volunteer alpha/beta testers), the same could be said about any RFA candidate, or for anyone requesting almost any permission. - Evad37 [talk] 02:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Andrew D.

13. Please explain your username, "Evad37". I see that your userpage has a set of disambiguations, such as "Eastern Valleys And Dales, the 37th region of Western Australia", but I get the impression that these are imaginary.

A: "Evad" is just "Dave" spelled backwards, and "37" is just a random number. All the "disambiguations" are just jokes, not at all serious (they are just below a box that reads "This section contains material that is considered humorous. Please do not take it seriously.") - Evad37 [talk] 11:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

14. Your editing seems a bit patchy. For example, there were a couple of months in 2018 in which you seem to have made no edits. Please explain how you will manage your availability to satisfy WP:ADMINACCT. Andrew D. (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

A: My inactivity last year was due to some real-life circumstances that I do not expect to reoccur. As an ordinary editor, Wikipedia is not compulsory, and I may take time off. I understand that administrators have higher expectations regarding communication – I chose "good communication skills" as my answer to question 8 – so I would endeavour to communicate my intentions better (e.g. by using one of the Wikibreak templates or a custom message on my userpage and talk page), and check in on a regular basis to see if there's anything I need to respond to, even if I don't have a much time for other editing.

Additional question from Nosebagbear

15. As a specific extension on Q9, there are multiple opposes and neutrals concerned about your recent/steeply declining mainspace edits, with concerns that you aren't keeping sufficiently active in the field for an admin/admin candidate. Is there a particular reason for the low current rate (a few %) and is there anything else relevant to calm these particular concerns?

A: My decline in mainspace editing is correlated to my increase in script creation and development. There's only so much time in the day, and only so much of that which I can devote to Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia projects). Since we are here as volunteers, we get to choose where we want to work, and I have experience with multiple different types of editing. In terms of mainspace, I have proved that I "get it" in what is required of articles, since I have worked multiple articles up to good and featured status. That doesn't disappear when I'm working in other parts of the project. - Evad37 [talk] 22:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Martinevans123

16. Should "non-active" admins be automatically deselected (some kind of activity criteria would be to be agreed obviously) and/or should all admins be subject to automatic recall and new RfA after a given time? Sorry if you have already answered this in a different question and I have missed it.Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

A: With regards to removal of admin tools, or reconfirmations, I feel it should be based on trust, or rather the loss of trust. Since you have put "non-active" in quotation marks, I presume you mean admins making edits but not taking logged admin actions, since there is already a procedure in place for admins who have been totally inactive for 12 months per WP:INACTIVITY (please clarify with a followup question if this is not what you meant). The time since the last logged admin action, or the time since the last RfA, is a pretty poor measure of whether the community has lost trust in an admin, and seems like it would be needless bureaucracy in many cases. A loss of trust comes from a pattern of behaviour that emerges over time, not merely due to the passage of time. At the moment the only (non-emergency) desysopping options are ARBCOM and voluntary resignation/recall. I would, depending on the details, be supportive of something between those two extremes: some sort of a community-based request-for-recall procedure – but getting the details right on this is complicated (especially making sure it is used in good faith, and not for petty matters, nor for revenge/harassment, nor for single incidents where all that may be needed is a {{trout}}, and also not too soon after a previous demonstration of community trust). - Evad37 [talk] 02:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Links for Evad37: Evad37 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Evad37 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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
2. I've never known this user to be a problem. SemiHypercube 00:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
3. As co-nom (see statement) czar 01:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
4. As co-nom --Rschen7754 01:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
5. support big net positive, article content in spades and sensible. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
6. Support: I doubt we'll have cause to regret giving Evad37 the tools. – Athaenara ✉ 01:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
7. Support: He seems to be just the sort of editor we need as an admin. --Bduke (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
8. Support: Solid history of content creation, no block log, good tenure, and a reasonable reason to need admin rights. Limited participation in AfD or CSD but that's not a deal-breaker. Chetsford (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
9. Support for meeting basic criteria. I note Tony's objection but it doesn't sway me; so many people object to users simply because they don't write enough. Here we have someone who is both technical and a writer. Ifnord (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
10. Support good content contributor and script creator, don't see any reason why not --DannyS712 (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
11. +S It's been at least eight years since I've !voted in one of these things. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
12. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
13. Support Obvious net positive, and Tony's objection is supremely unconvincing. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
14. Strong support, one of the most helpful editors I've ever encountered. I'd say more, but Amory has it covered. Good luck! -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
15. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 02:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
16. Support. Looks solid. Cbl62 (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
17. Support No concern at all. -- ferret (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
18. Support I really don't vote in RfA's often, if at all (maybe ever), but am making an exception. Evad37 is one of the most helpful, useful, and consistently civil editors I have ever met. An ideal candidate in my view -- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
19. Support Of course. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (cackle) 02:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
20. Support Anyone who can get Fremantle Prison to featured article status has to be brutally committed to the project. Evad is trusted, competent, intelligent, communicative, will learn (this is no nuclear science that lack of significant experience can be taken as enough for an oppose). Editors know what it takes to make an article come up to FA. That alone would have been enough for me to trust Evad. Welcome to the corps. Lourdes 02:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
21. Support. While I understand Tony's concerns below, one of the factors that leads me to believe Evad is a good candidate is his development of the XFD closer, a tool used by many if not most of the administrators closing deletion discussions. The manner in which this tool works shows his understanding of the needs of, as well as the role of, administrators in handling these kinds of discussions. (In short, he "gets" deletion processes.) Since this area is one of the more sensitive ones, his demonstrated understanding of it reassures me that, even if he has a technical focus to his work - and we do need administrators with such a focus - we won't be seeing him using the administrative tools inappropriately. Risker (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
22. Support. Good enough ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 03:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
23. Support: We need more admin and a trusted content creator with technical skills and a clean record seems like a perfect fit. I agree with the comments above that the editor can learn the areas they are unfamiliar with, and prior inexperience isn't a problem for me because no single editor is going to have experience in all areas of the project, and I believe this editor can be trusted not to take admin actions in unfamiliar project areas until they have learned those areas. Levivich 03:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
24. Support. I don't see why not, I can't see them abusing the tools.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 03:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
25. Support Trusted editor Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 03:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
26. Support cant see any issues granting the mop. FitIndia ^Talk 04:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
27. Support Why not? Double sharp (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
28. Support Such a net positive to the encyclopedia already, and clearly not someone who will abuse the privileges of adminship. Probably one of the most obvious support !votes I could think of. oknazevad (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
29. Support per nom, road articles, technical work, and help with the Signpost. He's a fellow West Aussie too, which is a bonus. :-) Graham87 05:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
30. Support High end content contributor and no evidence they will abuse the tools or position.--MONGO (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
31. Support although he hardly needs an introduction. Yes. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
32. Support per the nominators and the candidate's impressive contribution especially in technical areas. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
33. Support. User in good standing with a stated need. /Julle (talk) 06:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
34. Support - I've worked directly with him on script stuff and Evad37 is a great editor. Trusted and with need, all good for me. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 07:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
35. Support. Well, this was one of the users I offered to nominate but I'll settle on supporting instead. Their technical and content related contributions are well known and impressive. As for the opposes, I respectfully disagree. While it's always great to have a candidate who is active in many areas, it's not the deciding factor. The candidate has demonstrated that they are friendly, rational, trustworthy and capable and has clearly indicated a specific admin area they want to work in. The only question one should ask is: "Will this candidate with their track record be likely to start being active (in a negative way) in areas they are unfamiliar with?". I am convinced the answer to that question is "no". I also believe their answer to Q1 is what will happen if this request is successful. Regards SoWhy 07:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
36. Support precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
37. Support does great work with scripts, could do more with the tools. Has indicated they won't be branching out into unfamiliar areas with abandon. Also has shown they understand article development up to FA, which is a major bonus for me. Understanding content creation is very important in an admin. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
38. Support Not a jerk, has clue. From my perusal of contributions, he is not going to delete the main page or block Jimbo Wales. The lack of AfD stats is a red herring; if he didn't know what our notability and retention policies were, he'd have a bunch of created articles that were deleted, but he doesn't. The closest to this is NaNImage page sandbox.png, which was tagged per WP:G7 as a mistake a minute later. The drop in activity isn't really relevant - he has proved that he is capable of improving the encyclopedia, and doesn't need to prove it again and again. As for "lack of experience in almost every area where the sysop tools would benefit" - try being an admin and closing lots of AfDs. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

    "The drop in activity isn't really relevant - he has proved that he is capable of improving the encyclopedia, and doesn't need to prove it again and again." - that's an excellent point, and one which I will likely want to quote at future RfAs in response to red herrings about inactivity. Airbornemihir (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

39. Support per Graham87 - and Evad37 is also a regular and valued participant in Perth Meetups. Bahnfrend (talk) 09:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
40. Support per Bahnfrend, Evad37 is valued for his involvement and enthusiasm for things wikipedian, and also take the pains in real life to explain the more elusive technical issues - which is where the negative and neutral voters completely miss the quality imho - there is a very important level of patience in this person that I have encountered in real life - that in itself is something that I regularly finding totally lacking in the editing community - the rush to judge is not part of his vocabulary - and that quality that I have experienced first hand in person, simply is a quality that I rarely see in the afd/s or other spaces here over the last 14 years since I first started watching the circus otherwise known as Afd... I would recommend evad as a good candidate. JarrahTree 09:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
41. Support unequivocally absolutely trustworthy, having interacted with Evad at WT:WA WP:AWNB over the last 7 years he's level headed and clear on his reasonings providing good thorough responses. Having admins with technical/programming skills beyond most of us is not something to be scared of, its something that should be treasured. Absolutely confident with this I'd even resign my admin status if Evad was ever found to abuse the mop. Gnangarra 09:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
42. Strong support: a thoroughly qualified candidate with tons of mainspace editing experience as well as technical work. Has use for the tools and no civility/behavioural issues that I can see. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 10:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
43. Support Knows how to create good content (which is more than can be said for many admin candidates), clearly capable of reading and comprehending instructions and policies (so lack of experience in admin areas is less of a concern for me), technically more-than-competent and also evidently even-tempered and congenial. I see no reason not to hand over a mop, and plenty of good reasons to do so. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
44. Support While I have some sympathy for Tony's oppose rationale, I think that an editor with nearly 40,000 edits and >50 article creations without significant conflict has demonstrated that their approach is non-combative and that they understand our policies well enough. "But there are areas they don't have much experience in and they might go ballistic in those areas" (admittedly a caricature) is not enough to push me into oppose territory with this type of editor. GoldenRing (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
45. support a huge body of work with little conflict with a great knowledge of the policies that guide the project. Could only be an asset as an admin. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
46. Support Why not? -FASTILY 11:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
47. Support. I do not see why lack of experience in some admin areas would lead to the assumption that a clearly competent, bright and dedicated individual such as Evad37 would suddenly dissociate his brain from his fingers and blunder into everything and make a mess. I prefer to assume good faith and assume that someone competent in several areas has the capacity to learn competence in others. I don't see anything that suggests otherwise. Fish+Karate 11:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
48. Support - as clear net positive. GiantSnowman 11:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
49. Support  samee  converse  11:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
50. Support. I am a satisfied user of Evad37's admin tool XfDCloser since it superseded closerfd.js which I once maintained. I would like to offer my contrasting view on the oppose voters' main arguments: First, Evad37's design of XfDCloser shows that he has an accurate understanding of our deletion policy and procedure, so we should trust him to be an arbiter even if he isn't a regular discussant. Second, until we revise our policy to allow non-sysops to gain IAdmin, the desire to contribute to sitewide scripts is a demonstrated need for administrator status. Deryck C. 12:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
51. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
52. Support. Temperament plus dedication to the project equals a "go" for RfA. Loopy30 (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
53. Support 100% support. Great editor who works to improve the Portal namespace. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
54. Support. I know this nominee primarily due to User:Evad37/XFDcloser. I can say that per its care of design and its functionality, Evad37 has a rather clear grasp of administrative functionality of the WP:XFD processes. An editor who can create a script such as that while keeping procedures in check definitely gets a confidence vote for being able to handle the administrative toolset. Steel1943 (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
55. Support Lectonar (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
56. Support—passes my criteria — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 13:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
57. Support mainly per SoWhy. –FlyingAce^✈hello 13:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
58. Support. Has my trust; will be an asset to the project as an administrator. Spencer^T•C 13:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
59. Support – sounds good to me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 13:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
60. Support. About time we come across a nominee who has an impressive article creation resume. After all, we're here to build an encyclopedia. His technical abilities are a plus too. My full support for this editor. MX (✉ • ✎) 14:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
61. Support Trusted user, trusted noms. Temperamentally suited for adminship, and will make good use of the tools. Opposes not a concern. Miniapolis 14:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
62. Support shows a need for the tools, is a competent editor, and will be a net-positive to the project as an admin. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
63. Support because of the lovely XfDcloser script. CoolSkittle (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
64. Support I don't see any concerns and he has done rather extensive content stuff judging from his created articles besides the technical stuff. --Pudeo (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
65. Support. At last! Very valid opposes and objections from editors who have more than a clue! This janitor wannabee is one of the most awesome candidates to RfA fer crissakes! So you are all urged to turn your opposes into supports or neutrals, because there is obviously far more reason to give this remarkable candidate the tools than not! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  17:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
66. Support Seems careful, experienced, and a valuable contributor. Opposition is basically on grounds he hasn't been doing classical admin stuff is mitigated by his pledge to start with the areas he does know about, and his carefulness convinces me to believe him. --GRuban (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
67. Support - no reason not to. I think good content contributors who can do so without problems are likely to be good admins, even if their current need for tools is minimal (and in this case the nominee has established some need for tools). Rlendog (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
68. Support Evad37's editing history demonstrates that they have been long-time positive asset with numerous contributions: high-quality articles, script-writing and good communication skills. I trust their use of the administrator tools will be beneficial, as well. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
69. Support No reason not to. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 17:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
70. Support - I see no evidence to suggest that they would abuse the tools. Guettarda (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
71. support to counteract some stupid and wiki political opposes. Shame this only cancels out one third of 1 stupid oppose. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
72. support their contributions are very good, and i see adminship for this person as a potential catalyst for their improvement of wikipedia. Tommy has a great username (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
73. Support -- Looks good to me. -- Dolotta (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
74. Support. I do understand the opposes due to inexperience in admin areas, and I tend to want to see such experience too. But when something I like is not present, I ponder on whether it is likely to be a problem with the individual candidate. And here I'm seeing someone who I'm confident will not stray into policy areas he doesn't properly understand and will only use admin tools within his areas of competence. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
75. Support. Demonstrated need, highly competent in the areas where he currently participates, and I trust that should he decide to venture in to more admin areas, it would be very slowly and cautiously. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
76. I see nothing to indicate that they would abuse the tools SQL^{Query me!} 18:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
77. Support There has been no question about the temperament of the candidate and no reason to expect any abuse of the administrative tools. Evad37 has made and will continue to make a positive contribution to this project. --Enos733 (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
78. Support. The candidate has made significant content and technical contributions, and their behavior doesn't raise any concerns of abuse. — Newslinger talk 19:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
79. Support. Helpful, polite and competent in what they choose to do. Good enough for me. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 19:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

    I actually think there's a lot of similarity here with your RfA. Good content writer, some maintenance work, interested in portals, not a ton of activity in the traditional sysop-y areas but careful, competent, and trustworthy. If you'll permit me saying so, Evad37 has perhaps more familiarity with sysop areas (per Risker), but I was in the minority there and I won't be making that mistake again. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

80. Support No reason to believe this user would abuse the tools. valereee (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
81. Support. Very good and accurate nomination statements and answers to questions. wumbolo ^^^ 19:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
82. Support - I've never really written down my RFA criteria, but they are twofold: 1) the candidate asked (this is important), and 2) the candidate isn't obviously about to fuck shit up. You meet criterion 1 (this page exists) and I don't see any good reason to doubt criterion 2. I don't put much stock in opposes based on admin inexperience: everyone who puts their name up here lacks experience in admin areas (except those that have lost the tools but let's not get into that). I also find it amusing (in a charming way) that your answer to Q10 about copyediting your own responses is in need of copyediting. You understand your weaknesses, and that's a big part of adminning. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
83. Support, no concerns. GAB^gab 19:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
84. Support Evad37 has made many positive contributions and is likely to continue doing just that as an interface administrator. Vexations (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
85. Support I don't remember any interactions I've had with Evad37 myself, but based on the number of support votes above and the sound reasoning of the nomination, this seems like a good choice. SportingFlyer T·C 21:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
86. Support I am happy to have trusted content creators and technical experts grow into the tools. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
87. Support - It's true that experience in traditional admin areas is a typical prerequisite, because it's the best metric we have to judge a candidate's competence and character as an admin. But, in this case, the competence and experience the candidate has demonstrated in other areas is astounding. His content qualifications alone are amazing, and he's proven himself to be a fantastic article writer who has contributed more to the project than many of us admins ever will. His script contributions are amazing as well, and that's not something that should be minimized. Script developers are unsung heroes, who improve the quality and experience of editing Wikipedia in ways which aren't even measurable. And, while technical competence isn't automatically a qualification for adminship, I have yet to see any negative consequences from promoting users from the technical faction of the community. In my experience, they consistently prove to be the finest folks in the admin corps, and are people I greatly respect and look up to as a "traditional" admin. As a Page Mover and Template Editor, Evad is already trusted with our most sensitive and restricted user rights beneath adminship. Evad has uploaded hundreds upon hundreds of educational files to Wikipedia and Commons, and understands copyright. Evad had a central role in reviving The Signpost after it went out of circulation for several months, taking over the vacant Editor-in-chief position and developing a new script for the purpose. Evad has stated that they will use the tools in areas that they are already experienced in, such as performing technical deletions, template protections, and serving as an interface admin, and will ease themselves into new roles and will take time to learn, and will not start overzealously wielding the mop in areas they're unfamiliar with. And, most importantly, the many testimonials to the candidates affable demeanor, attitude and temperament shows that their character and integrity are beyond reproach. In sum, I'm so thoroughly impressed by this candidate, that I feel like reducing them to a "why not" or a "net positive" would be insulting. This candidate brings a lot more to the table than someone who reverts vandals or !votes in AfDs, or voices their opinion at the drama boards. ~Swarm~ {talk} 23:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
88. Support - not convinced by oppose rationales (one can easily avoid admin areas precisely because one isn't an admin), and without good reasons to oppose I default to support. Banedon (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
89. Support - I am staunchly against how strongly the "must create articles" brigade judges highly competent candidates. Here we have a candidate who has done just that, to the highest level, and not in eons past either. They have enormous technical experience and WP:INTADMIN need is certainly sufficient to counter every individual who has stated Evad doesn't demonstrate his need for the rights. Additionally, the candidate has some excellent responses to questions - I am confident they will not start bludgeoning their mop in areas in which they lack knowledge. They are well above "net positive" or a default-yes and are instead a fully legitimate candidate. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
90. Support When someone has navigated FA five times over with nary a person showing up to say they're a jerk (or variant), I think it quite loses the thread to worry they don't have sufficient mastery of what we do here to be trusted with the tools. And the technical skills too? This is really a reminder to me of how lucky we are such talented people volunteer their time on the project. Thank you very much for your contributions. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
91. Support - Technically competent, can author/contribute content, isn't (hasn't been) a jerk. Three traits that bolster an admin candidate. On the content side, I will note that content creation has been abysmal for the past couple of years, which is a shame, but it's not a deal-breaker given the history of content creation. I don't think the opposition has really hit on anything consequential – and I'm not unsympathetic to the "demonstrated need" argument – but int-admins need admin tools, so I don't see how this line of argumentation is meant to work. It's a particularly weak argument here given how many admins as for, and receive, the tools for one specific job (such as Oshwah for counter-vandalism, or TonyBallioni for revdel and PERM of all reasons). That's also completely ignoring whatever Gamaliel's problem is supposed to be. "Hasn't picked a fight with someone I don't like, oppose". Yeah, ok then. Doesn't manufacture drama +1 to support. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
92. Support has high quality content creation and has created some of the best user scripts for Wikipedia that have significantly eased time consuming tasks for both admins and other editors. He has already said that he needs the admin tools to help deliver new scripts so there is a clear need for the tools and he has also stated that he will be very careful before using other admin tools so I do not see any logic in opposing this RFA and there has been no evidence presented that he should be mistrusted or is error prone, adminship is not rocket science Atlantic306 (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
93. Support A trusted user is trusted user. Just because they have little AfD experience doesn't mean they'll go killing random articles—they've stated that they would start working on something like this very gradually, and given the amount of trust they have I see no reason to doubt that. Gaelan 💬✏️ 01:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
94. Support per Swarm and so many others above. No issues with the candidate. I legitimately thought Evad37 was an admin, no cliché intended. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
95. Support as a trusted and trustworthy user. The applicant has stated that he intends to apply for interface adminiship. Only admins can apply. He may not have a need for the tools as such, as some opposers argue, but without having the tools he cannot apply. Likely to be a net-positive hence I see no issues. Schwede66 02:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
96. Support. I am following the masses here. Also, I second what Swarm said. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 03:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
97. Support No concerns including those raised by the opposes.--I am One of Many (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
98. Support. I've mulled this over and am convinced by the candidate's answer to Nosebagbear's question, as well as the trust of many names above mine whose opinions I respect. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
99. In the past, I have opposed candidates who have made great contributions to Wikipedia, but not necessarily ones that are strictly relevant to the kind of maintenance work that administrators do. I see Evad37 along similar veins. However, looking retrospectively at my votes, along with how those admins eventually turned out, I now believe that these opposes may have been mistakes. Admittedly, I don't think I've ever interacted with Evad37, and the only place I had ever heard of him before now was his outstanding XfD script (which I regularly use). Despite creating the XfD script, Evad37 has only participated in a small handful of XfDs, but a look through his XfD contributions shows that his reasoning is in-depth and demonstrates understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines in the topic areas in which he typically works. He's not just piling on here. If this candidate truly did not understand article policies and guidelines, this would be reflected in his content work as well, and I've only seen good things on that front. No red flags have shown up with respect to temperament – the candidate seems friendly and reasonable. His technical contributions are on a caliber that makes me excited to see what new conveniences he'll bring to the admin toolset. In short, I see this as a net positive – please give him the mop. Mz7 (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
100. Mild support. Let the programmers write scripts, y'all, and don't make people participate in AIV and XFDs if they don't want to. Remember we're all volunteers. Still, I hope the candidate will focus on continuing to write content and specifically fixing their copyediting skills, since the stated reliance on "plenty of WikiGnomes" in A10 rubs me the wrong way. Airbornemihir (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

     If someone who is knowledgeable about the RfA participation scripts could let me know whether the "mild support" above is likely to screw up my RfA voting record, that would be great. Airbornemihir (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

     @Airbornemihir: If you mean whether the script can still parse it, yup it can. Regards SoWhy 15:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

101. Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools. I am unswayed but the opposer's arguments. --rogerd (talk) 05:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
102. Support Fantastic user with brilliant mind. He made some useful user scripts. Trusted user. Xain36 (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
103. Support working in narrow areas is perfectly fine. I'm not concerned he will wander into areas he is not now working and make a big mess. Legacypac (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
104. Support: I believe that Evad would be a net positive as an admin, and have no concerns that they would abuse the admin tools. Impressive content earlier in their career, and I would encourage them to resume article writing as this would definitely benefit the encyclopedia. That said, their technical work is also over great benefit, so either way we are lucky to have such editors. I acknowledge that Evad has a currently narrow focus and can see why this is of concern; however, if Evad chooses to eventually expand into areas that they have limited knowledge of, I am confident that they will do their homework beforehand and ask the appropriate questions before getting involved, and then act with considered caution. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
105. Support - per Swarm and the noms. There is no indication or evidence that the candidate will grossly abuse the tools. Given the current structure of the system, desiring Interface Admin access is a perfectly valid reason for requesting sysop access. EclipseDude (talk) 08:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
106. Support I especially like the inspirational quote from Paul Graham at the head of the candidate's user page, "If you have something real to say, being mean just gets in the way". They seem to live up to this by getting things done without being nasty and that's good. More power to his elbow. Andrew D. (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
107. Support – oppose !votes raise valid concerns, but I'm reassured by his restraint displayed in Q1 – I am not intending to undertake admin work where I don’t have much experience. Excellent content and technical work. Clear net positive. – Teratix ₵ 10:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
108. Support While I understand the concerns of those in the oppose section regarding the candidate's lack of experience in "typical" admin areas like UAA, AIV, CSD, etc., they regardless have a clear and demonstrated need for the tools. Technical and script-related maintenance is still vital to the running of the encyclopedia, and Evad37 has already gained the trust of the community in this field of work. As such, I have no reason to believe they won't be an overall WP:NETPOSITIVE. Omni Flames (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
109. Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
110. Support – Evad37 has clearly demonstrated excellence in content creation. In discussions and debates about article content over the last few years (both online and in person at Perth meetups), he has repeatedly demonstrated comprehensive knowledge of policies and guidelines, and the ability to cite the appropriate policies, guidelines, and relevant previous discussions to support his views. Furthermore he is always reasonable and polite in such discussions, even when disagreeing with other editors, attributes that are important for someone with administrative powers. I am certain that we can trust Evad37 to use administrative privileges to improve Wikipedia. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
111. Support Though he has not really touched AfD, he seems not to be a problem. Definitely active in enough areas. Collect (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
112. Support candidate seems competent and opposes are unconvincing. It is hard to blame someone for inactivity in admin areas when they previously weren't an admin. And, while I'm not a big fan of demanding a demonstrated need for the tools, such a need actually has been demonstrated in this case, contrary to what several opposers have claimed. Lepricavark (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
113. Support - Some of the opposers raise valid points re: need for the tools, but it's very easy to read policy documents and figure out when to press the sysop buttons, and I trust that Evad37 could do this well. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
114. Support since I don't see any reason to believe that he'll be abusing his tools. Since the community, in it's collective wisdom, has decided that IAs shall be sysops; anybody with the required technical prowess ought be promoted absent any blatant red flag. The need to be an IA, is in itself a valid need for accessing the mop. ∯WBG^converse 17:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
115. Support - no meaningful reason to oppose has been given. --B (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
116. Support - The repertoire is impressive, and the skill is there. It's understandable on why some people would doubt how you handle the mop, considering you don't do much in terms of vandalism fighting and XFD work. However, I think that just knowing the policies and how to respond to them is fine: The total net positive that can be done as an admin will surely astound. There is room to expand. –eggofreason^talk 19:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
117. Support - To be perfectly honest, I'm a bit surprised to learn that this editor isn't already an admin! The opposing comments haven't done much to dissuade me of the notion that he will be an excellent mop-wielder. We need more contributors like him. ♥Acorimori♦ 19:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
118. Support upon review. Given the interface administrator-like work done so far and the need to be an admin to get that position there is a need for the tools. I appreciate the honesty in stating which areas the candidate wants to avoid, and while the follow-up to that in the rest of Q1 is a completely boilerplate answer, I trust the answer is an honest one given the other answers to questions and the nomination statements. As for inconsistent activity, that is a good reason to vote against an Arbitration Committee candidate, not an RFA candidate. ZettaComposer (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
119. Support Good editor with a long and consistent track record of content editing. We can always do with more good content editors shifting some (hopefully not all!) of their focus from content to managing the project. --regentspark (comment) 20:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
120. Support - Having mulled over it for a good half hour I'm finally plotting myself here - The lack of XfD participation, the lack of work in admin areas and the lack of work in mainspace is a major concern for me however having read your answers as well as looking at your contributions over all I personally think you'd make a good admin here, You're trusted and certainly knowledgeable with the tech side of things, As long as you don't delete the main page then I'm sure you'll get on grand. :) –Davey2010^Talk 21:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
121. Support - Net positive Mahveotm (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
122. Yes. Has demonstrated he has the skills, abilities, knowledge, and commitment. The project will benefit from Evad37 being given the additional tools to carry out the things he is good at. SilkTork (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
123. I'm supporting this longterm, useful Wikipedian. Evad37's need for the tools is in an area where I'm not that familiar. But we need technically focussed editors to be able to do things that require admin rights, so I have no concerns about Evad not having ticked some of the boxes that would imply admin coaching. I like the clean blocklog, I'm not seeing anything that makes me worried Evad would be heavy with either the deletion button or the block button. I even take the occasional wiki break of a few weeks as a positive. As for Evad being active in an area where a certain other person is considered controversial, I note that that person has now opposed. so this is now the first RFA in quite a while to include opposes per "guilt by association" with someone who is themselves in the oppose section....... ϢereSpielChequers 22:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

     Yeah... most opposes are reasonable, even if I disagree with them, but those two in particular strike me as a bit... silly, to say the least. –FlyingAce^✈hello 15:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

124. Support - It might be my first vote, but after reading, I think this nominee would be a good fit. TheOneFootTallBrickWall (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

     No, it's not your first vote, and from a user with 41 edits in the last several years, it's a bit weird to say the least. See your other voting.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

     So TheOneFootTallBrickWall reads a lot and edits a little, so what. – Athaenara ✉ 23:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

     So TheOneFootTallBrickWall reads a lot and edits a little, and lies?!​ Lourdes 02:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

     Or maybe their memory is a bit flaky at times. Shit happens. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

     Possible Pbsouthwood. With 7 edits out of their total 41 edits to RfAs and with their 4th edit being a wikilove message to Widr, one of the most prolific vandal blockers, possible, but improbable. Lourdes 09:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

     I see your point, Lourdes. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

     I am sorry if I ever did that, I really dont remember a lot of what of what I used to edit, because I usually edit on Wikia, but I am sorry for my past edits. My vote still stands though. TheOneFootTallBrickWall (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

125. Support: Competent, trustworthy. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
126. Support - there is no requirement for admins or any other editor to participate in any particular areas. Here we have a highly competent technical editor which no one disputes. Until the day comes when we unbundle the tools, if he needs some of the tools for his technical tasks, we have no option but give them all to him. Someone as technically skilled as Evad is likely capable of bringing down the website without admin tools. There's no reason not to give them to him. John from Idegon (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
127. Support. I see multiple users whom I respect in the oppose and neutral sections, so I have given careful thought to their concerns. But I honestly cannot see anything that would make me oppose. This isn't a case of too-soon. And no editor who has commented here so far has presented any evidence of impolite or unhelpful or clueless conduct (show me a series of diffs and I'll change my mind). To the contrary, multiple editors have commented on the candidate's politeness and helpfulness. And I'll shout a right-on to the answer to a question above, where the candidate linked to WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. So we have someone who has been around long enough that we would have had a track record of being a jerk if he had been one, and there is no such evidence. The fact that the candidate hasn't done a lot of such-and-such, in this context, just means: take things slowly after getting the tools. What I see here is someone I can trust to be a net-positive. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
128. Support: I believe that this user would make a great admin. --It's Boothsift 00:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
129. Support: Has shown serious competency in this area in the past and deserves the shot. Kaizenify (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
130. Support: Seems like a pleasant editor with experience as a content editor and a well-specified reason to want to be an admin. --JBL (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
131. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
132. Support won't misuse the tools, and any use of the tools means having them is a bonus for the project. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
133. Support They'll be fine. Anarchyte (talk | work) 02:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
134. Support. Excellent potential. bd2412 T 05:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
135. Support. I take the concerns of the opposers quite seriously and do not dismiss them out of hand. But this candidate is an outstanding content contributor and has widely acknowledged technical skills that I can barely understand. Nobody has furnished any evidence of disruptive or clueless behavior. In the final paragraph of their answer to Question 1, the candidate commits to rigorous and thorough preparation before venturing into new administrative areas. I am happy to support this candidate after thinking about it for a few days. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
136. Support - Should make a useful addition to the admin ranks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
137. yay. -- Flooded w/them 100s 07:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
138. Support - Trusted editor. No concerns about misuse or causing any problems. Also per Cullen328 above - noted concerns have been credibly addressed by the candidate. GermanJoe (talk) 08:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
139. Support. Fully qualified candidate. I don’t find the opposers’ concerns persuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
140. Support. Convinced by the competences and the answers of the candidate. And also by the vacuity of the reasons given in the oppose section. This guy dared to leave one month without asking permission ! Shame on that argument, not on this guy. This guy dared to write some useful writing tools instead of writing more pokemon/baseball/pornstar articles ! Shame on that argument, not on this guy. This guy dared to say he will learn in good faith ! It seems there are people offended by such an assertion. I am not one of them. The question was to trust or not to trust, wasn't it ? And the answer is: trust. Pldx1 (talk) 09:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
141. Support As an Australian editor, I've seen Evad's contributions to Aussie articles over the years, and they've been good. While I'm not familiar with their technical and other behind the scenes work, the very strong nomination statements and Evad's excellent answers to the questions give me every confidence they'll use the admin tools well. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
142. Support a plus to the community, will be a plus to the admin corps. Cabayi (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
143. Support and also permit leaves of absence from admin duties longer than 1 month! Net positive. jni^{(talk)(delete)} 11:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
144. S++ Evad37 has already got the technical ability to cause project wide disruption. We aren't giving him permissions to anything worse than that....are we ? << FR ^(mobileUndo) 12:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
145. Support. A clear net positive for the encyclopedia. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
146. Support Clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
147. oppose the S% is above 90%, I cannot believe it.no concern Hhkohh (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
148. Support as a net positive for the project. Strikerforce^Talk 16:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
149. Support I see no reason not to support. No disqualifying reasons. My bar for administrators is high, and I'd like to see more content creation, but there's enough to show competency, which is critical for writing scripts. Jacona (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
150. Support Per nomination. The user is undoubtedly more than experienced enough, especially in user scripts. I even used some of them for some time. GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 17:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
151. Support. I'm surprised to learn that Evad developed XfDcloser without access to the admin tools, and excited to think what he might come up with if he had them (WP:DRV, please!). Tony's point in the oppose section did give me pause—the most important skills for admins are social, not technical—but Evad's answers to the questions have convinced me that, if he did decide to try out other areas of admin work, he would do so with tact and care. Kudpung's didn't. This is a volunteer project and we all have the right to take breaks. – Joe (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
152. Support Still wondering what happened behind the scenes of his editing break that it is considered an issue. Are we using bots now to check candidates for anomalies and dragging those out without checking to see if it conducive to the matter at and??^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
153. Support per above. I've read through recent comments on User_talk:Evad37/XFDcloser.js and feel confident in this editor's ability to communicate which is my main concern for a technical admin. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
154. Linking Graham's Hierarchy == automatic Support ~Awilley (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
155. Support. Seems consistently sensible and reasonable to me. And we need some tech-focused admins. With the interface pages now being locked down under an IAdmin bit (something I lobbied against pretty hard), it is now no longer possible for just interested and technically competent people to work on these pages, only admins who are also technically competent and also interested in the work. The implementation of IAdmin requires the community to "import" into the admin corps some tech-savvy people who are also not flaming asshats and who also know what the policies are and will make good enough admins. We can't continue doing nothing but (rarely, these days) approving as new admins only people who are focused on user-management drama. WP is not a reality TV show. (And even if it were, it would still need gaffers.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
156. Support late to the party because some of the oppose votes made me pause to think - nothing wrong with his technical capacity, just whether he had demonstrated enough of the other skills required of an admin. On reflection I trust him not to trash the joint & more importantly not to step too far out of his areas of competence. Or as SMcCandlish put it - I don't believe he is a flaming asshat who is about to launch into user-management drama. Find bruce (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

     ✓ SMcCandlish Admin Criteria #1: Not a flaming asshat who is about to launch into user-management drama. Leviv ich 08:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

     Heh. My RfA standards page didn't say that outright, but it makes a good {{Nutshell}}!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

157. Happy to support Zingarese talk · contribs 04:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
158. Support. I don't see any problem with giving Evad administrative rights. He is clearly experienced and knowledgeable with Wikipedia as a whole and I can see him using his administrative rights in a positive manner. While I did agree with some of the points TonyBalloni made, it's pretty clear that the positives outweigh the negatives in this situation. CrispyCream27 • talk • user page 06:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
159. Support Personally I put little weight on the "need' arguments at RFC. No one has the need for the tools. I am impressed with the candid answers to the questions and they leave me in no doubt that they are cluefull and an asset to the project. AIRcorn (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
160. Support - a competent and knowledgeable editor who has my support for the job. -- Longhair\^talk 10:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
161. Support - Diligent content writer and excellent contributor toward the tools that make maintenance easier. This user has a clear track record of contributions which strongly contribute toward our goal of a great encyclopedia. I have confidence that anything they do as an admin will similarly contribute toward that goal. Daask (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
162. Support Net positive and trustworthy. It seems clear that the tools will not be missused and additional experience will come with time.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
163. Support: not a dick, knows what he's doing. SITH (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
164. Support—The candidate communicates clearly and edits with a level head. Given this and their extensive positive track record, I believe they will make a fine admin. Airplaneman ✈ 19:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
165. Support - Experience in admin areas is in no way prerequisite of becoming an admin, although it is helpful. It doesn't guarantee a "better" admin either, whatever that means. The key issue for any admin candidate is "can we trust them?" above all else. Everything is learned on the job, no amount of experience in admin areas really prepares you. That said, I see no reason to distrust the candidate, so I fall to a default "support". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
166. Support More admins is always a good thing. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
167. Support Wishing you good luck with your nomination.--Mona.N (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
168. Stephen 00:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
169. Support. I don't see problems here. I trust Evad37's judgment based on his track record of writing quality articles and work in technical areas. Knowing where he doesn't have experience, and recognizing his ability to refrain from these fields, is actually a positive for me. epicgenius (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
170. Support. Long-time good contributor in an area that badly needs more active admins. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
171. Support: No concerns. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
172. Support— Bukhari (Talk!) 14:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
173. Support because the candidate has shown a need for the tools, has shown themselves to not only not be a jerk, but to be actively helpful, shows plenty of CLUE, and seems incredibly unlikely to run wild in areas where lacking expertise. Ergo in all probability this place will be better if the candidate has extra tools. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
174. Support I might be a newer editor and certainly new to the RfA process, but I've reviewed this application and taken a look at the user's contributions and I see no reason why they wouldn't be a net positive to Wikipedia. I feel like a long-term user with many constructive contributions and apparently a strong track record of civility sounds like a great candidate for adminship. Maybe his contributions fall more on the technical side, but that's a nice thing to have. So I'll have to throw my hat in for Support. Cosmic Sans (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
175. Support My original thought when first seeing this RFA was it was some person randomly and toosoonly making the request, yet the name seemed vaguely familiar. Not until waiting a day and reading the opposes did the realization come that this editor is something special. To me, an admin needs to be reasonable and competent in the areas in which they do their admin duties. There is no need to be involved in every aspect of their permission–pool, they just need to be good at what they actually do. Evad37 appears to understand policy, civility, sourcing, grammar and most importantly a darned–good knowledge of the code that helps others do their jobs. I believe Evad has the self–realization to tread lightly or cautiously in foreign areas while doing the best they can in those jobs and responsibilities where others would not get near with a ten foot pole.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
176. Support Looks like my idea of an ideal candidate. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
177. Support Accomplished editor, clear net benefit. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
178. Support NapalmSunday (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
179. Support Drmies (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
180. Support I believe the candidate is trustworthy based on a long record of productive contributions. As Dennis Brown states, trustworthiness is the main consideration. Also, the user's demeanor and interactions are positive and calm. I might be in the neutral or even oppose section for some of the reasons given if the candidate did not have this long record. I think the reasons are not applicable to Evad37. Not only does Evad37 have a long record, but his articles show a good understanding of policy and sourcing. There is no indication that he will go rogue and mess up in areas in which he is not familiar. Swarm, Mz&, Cullen328, Deryck Chan, Tryptofish and others have stated the same case for support well and in more detail. Donner60 (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
181. SupportSeems trustworthy. Doublethink1954 (talk) 07:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
182. Absolutely Has strong knowledge of administrative procedures. Many editors (me included) have told him to run for adminship in the past. feminist (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
183. Support No worries Lyndaship (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
184. Support per Donner60. Rehman 10:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
185. Support. Has shown a need, and shown that they are trustworthy. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
186. Support I have no issues with this candidate. Conlinp (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
187. Support. Whatever the nominator's introduction, I have no recollection of seeing this contributor in any high-traffic space, and thus I am relying a bit on the perspectives of other community members here who I do recognize and whose attestations I credit as valuable--though this will not be the first RfA in which I've had to so-rely to an extent--coupled, of course, with the information available within the nomination and responses to queries and a little independent research. I find no red flags in that corpus, the candidate's attitude seems collected and pragmatic enough, and it's a considerable bonus that they wish to combine their role with the development of technical tools. All factors considered, I can comfortably endorse. Snow ^{let's rap} 12:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
188. Weak Support - I was originally a Weak Oppose, but I have moved here after having a second thought about this. Whilst I feel the Opposes share some valid points, so do the Supports. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
189. I've no reason to believe their use of the toolset will be problematic or detrimental to the project - the quantity of high quality content contributions and the understanding that brings will set them in good stead for their work on the administrative areas of the project. I trust, however, they'll seek counsel from a range of experienced admins whenever they're unsure about something (indeed, nothing I've seen suggests they'll leap without looking in any case). Nick (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
190. Support I see no issues with this candidate Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
191. Support - I have no issues on having maintenance/technical (non-content) Admins, maintaining what is already here is just as important as adding to it. Good luck, - FlightTime (open channel) 20:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
192. Support - Not having hard-and-fast admin criteria I've evaluated Evad37 based on my interactions with them at The Signpost in particular, and generally reviewed others' comments and the candiate's editing history. I understand that some people want to see more admin-y stuff in advance of granting of the tools, or that they want to see more mainspace edits. However – especially with their well considered answer to Q12 – I see a person who I think we can basically trust and will grow into the position as much as they need to, if they go beyond the stated purpose of gaining the interface admin toolset. Part of my reason for not going with the stricter criteria (some promulgated by experienced folks who I much respect) is in the spirit of going back to WP:NOBIGDEAL for those who have demonstrated commitment to the project plus general cluefulness. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
193. Support - having the good sense to indulge my somewhat partisan side-show question with a thoughtful and positive answer is enough to convince me of the candidate's sincerity and suitability. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

     I occasionally ask(ed) a similar question, although for obvious reasons didn't here. IMO it's not a bad way to assess whether the candidate can think/has thought about the role of sysops and how current or potential policy might come into formulation. While we've spilled a lot of digital ink on the subject, unlike a lot of typical questions there isn't a "right" answer for them to look up, and what a candidate says may tell you how well they've thought about some of the more thorny concepts. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

194. Support Great editor, can he start tomorrow? Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 23:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
195. Support We need people with a variety of skills as admins. Based on what I;'ve seen here, he'll likely brqanchout a little, and there no reason to think he will not do it competently, DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
196. Support – Kurtis ^(talk) 00:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
197. Support I sincerely do appreciate a candidate who has tech skills and can appreciate them even more when they've helped promote articles to FA/GA status. It speaks volumes to me. If he is accomplished in those two areas, he has the basics+ to be a good admin. I see him helping in areas where the project is lacking. All the other stuff will come in due time. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 00:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
198. Support – Well qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
199. Support - Evad37 appears to be a trustworthy editor, and I've not seen anything that concerns me (other than the fact he is from Perth, but we all have our faults) . I respect the criteria and viewpoint of those opposing, but I do not share the same reluctance about giving the full set of tools to someone who intends to use only a small subset of them. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
200. Support to make it 200. The standards have gotten much too high, in my view, and this candidate seems clearly suitable. The Moose 07:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
201. Support great candidate, good content contributions, stable character, demonstrated need for admin rights for technical use. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
202. Support – Evad's strong technical skills will complement, rather than duplicate, existing expertise. The candidate understands which tools to use safely, which to leave for other admins, and which new tools can usefully be written. Certes (talk) 10:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
203. Support --Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
204. Support There is no indication that he would be a net negative as an administrator. --Count Count (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
205. Support – cygnis insignis 16:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
206. Peter James (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
207. Support. Trusted user, happy to support. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
208. Support – Nigej (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
209. Support. Responses to questions appear honest and convincing. Maproom (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
210. Support – Although I was initially skeptical, Evad's answers to questions and handling of objections has convinced me that they've got what it takes to wield the mop. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 23:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
211. Support – JMHamo (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
212. Support - Trusted and well qualified. TheGeneralUser (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'm always very leery of promoting technical contributors to RfA on technical prowess: I think it has nothing to do with most of the responsibilities of adminship, and while I get the IAdmin bit was restricted to admins, it was not restricted there as a way to increase the number of people who had access to that ability, but to actively limit it. If editing these areas was not on its own a reason to grant someone adminship who had not demonstrated they were capable of using the tools in other areas before, it shouldn't be now.
   The main reason I am not supporting is that I see virtually no project space participation outside of tech stuff and article writing. I am very appreciative of his edits to those areas, but I am not comfortable with an admin who has virtually no experience working in admin areas. Unfortunately, I must oppose this nomination at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

   He may not have broad participation in project-space, but I think it's imprecise to call Evad37 a technical contributor. I'm nominating because he clearly understands what it takes to build the front-facing side of an encyclopedia and is a pleasant contributor. His technical contributions interest me only in as much as they show him to be full of clue and already quite trusted. Yes, he'd be a good intadmin, but imo we've got enough and don't need more. He is good at what he does, is kind and considerate to other editors, and passes my RfA criteria; I think he's worth another look at yours. This reply is also really to Cam, but I'm more familiar with your criteria given the similarity between ours ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

   I’m clearly in a minority here, which I don’t mind as I think it’s an important point to raise, but I expect admin candidates to have experience in both content areas and the areas admins actually work in. He has absolutely zero experience in the latter. I’m sorry, but there are plenty of gifted technical contributors who once they start contributing to policy areas are way over their heads. We need a track record of some sort to at least see how they would act here. That unfortunately doesn’t exist. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

   Amory I'm sorry but only participating in 5 AFDS I can't bring my self to support. Knowing when to delete things is a big role of an admin and I can't evaluate Evad37 with such little participation in that area. This is probably the biggest issue causing me to oppose.--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

2. While I'm not unsympathetic to the desire to have access to the interface admin privileges, I must concur with TonyBallioni that a lack of project space edits is concerning. Since you need to be an admin to be granted I-Admin you should need to meet the requisites the community has established for both positions not just one or the other. Unfortunately these points give me a huge pause in supporting your RFA. That said I think you are a competent editor and would make a great I-Admin, but you can't have that ability without the standard administrator toolset and I'm not comfortable with granting someone with so few edits (non-technical) to project space the full tool set. Regards, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose per a lack of demonstrated need for the tools and lack of experience in almost every area where the sysop tools would benefit (per TonyBallioni). Nihlus 09:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose. I don't think you should be blamed for Kudpung's use of the Signpost for rampant and self-admitted "character assassination", but you should be blamed for remaining on the editorial board and not speaking out against it. This does not give me confidence that you should be entrusted with special tools and charged with enforcement of BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

   That doesn't track. If you're one of several managers of a restaurant, and a customer freaks out and breaks some stuff, you eject the misbehaving customer, you don't quit being a manager. (That said, I have not read Kudpung's piece, and am not certain it should be likened to a customer doing weird stuff in a restaurant; maybe it was more reasonable. My point is that Kudpung's actions and the candidates are not intimately tied to each other.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

   But Kudpung is a manager, not a customer, and it is not the matter of a single article. Gamaliel (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

   My point is still valid; just use a more apt analogy: If you're on a board of directors and you find that another member of the board has been doing something wrong, like siphoning money to pay for lapdances and dope, you vote to eject the boardmember and to take other action (police report? civil suit?), and then work to repair the damage done to the organization. You don't just throw up your hands and leave the company to the wolf you unmasked. Even if it takes all year to deal with the matter, and even if it's not the no. 1 thing on your life's agenda. (Again, I can't vouch for Kudpung's editorial(s) qualifying as something abusive; I'm only speaking to the "blame the wrong person" angle of your vote. I won't do so further; I'm not a fan of badgering people at RfA, I'm just clarifying because the point of my original questioning of your vote's basis was completely missed.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

5. Oppose Unfortunately this user comes out on the wrong side of my RFA criteria. My main concerns have been put better than I could have by Tony above me, but I'd also like to point out a lack of AFD participation from this user. Iffy★Chat -- 13:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
6. Oppose Inactivity in admin areas=no real need for the tools. ——SerialNumber54129 13:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

   Please allow me to point out that you are factually incorrect. The applicant has stated that he intends to apply for interface adminiship. Only admins can apply. Maybe not a need for the tools as such, but without having the tools he cannot apply. Schwede66 02:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

   Thank you, Schwede66, for allowing me to point out that you are factually incorrect. You see: what they do in the future makes up in no way for what they have not done in the past. Now, feel free to badger elsewhere. ——SerialNumber54129 11:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

   How much badgering would you like? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

   Serial Number 54129, isn't your argument WP:NONEED? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

   Isn't yours WP:ESSAY...? Yes, of course it is. ——SerialNumber54129 15:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

   understandable -- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

7. Oppose I share the concerns of others that the nominee has not shown significant experience in admin areas and given the work they do already a lack of need for them. The candidate has not been able to address my concerns and also seems to be editing less and less over time. I would advise the candidate to show experience in other areas then comeback in a year or so. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 15:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
8. Oppose In my view adminship requires at least some evidence of work in admin-related areas, and I’m just not seeing it here. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
9. Oppose As listed in other descent on the nominee, the question is not clearly answered about the 'part time' aspect of Evad37's edits. The most common counter on this vote has been "Why not?" The "why not" apathy is what leads to complacency and eventual demise of a resource as useful as Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacekeeper 1234 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

   I think that if "why not" !voters were truly apathetic, then they probably wouldn't be participating in this RFA at all. Rather, they believe that the candidate is a net positive. GAB^gab 20:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

   @Peacekeeper 1234: What does "listed in other descent" mean? – Athaenara ✉ 21:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

   @Athaenara: I think they mean "listed in other dissent(ing) iVotes".  Spintendo  08:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

   Thanks, Spintendo. – Athaenara ✉ 08:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

   @Peacekeeper 1234: I object to that characterization. My "why not" !vote is the result of careful consideration that has led me to believe well-intentioned admins who don't fulfill every single editor's list of requirements can still be extremely helpful to the project. Every editor has a different set of requirements; mine are that someone wants to make a contribution, is competent to do so, shows no evidence of disruptive editing or petty behavior toward other editors, and that their likely contributions will be a net positive. It has ZERO to do with apathy on my part. valereee (talk) 11:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

   I have to agree with Peacemaker here. If you have gone to all the effort of careful consideration, then give a better reason than "why not". It's a term I hate to see at RfA because—whether you like it or not—it comes across as lazy. Admins are a big deal, and giving power and responsibility with such a seemingly apathetic !vote gives the wrong impression. I wish the clerks would ignore the votes that don't give a good enough rationale. Many oppose !votes are harassed at every step for well thought-out opinions, but support votes can post the most trite statements without anyone actually asking what they mean by "why not". - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

   I do agree with SchroCat on this (and as is sometimes the case, I don't agree with Tony but he expresses his views diligently so I respect them); however I think the badgering is simply a by-product of being in the minority of an argument. In the reverse situation, where we had a very obviously unsuitable candidate (lots of warning templates, several trips to ANI, blocked a few times) and somebody !voted "Support - He's a nice guy, why not?", I expect they would get badgered, but the RfA would close as SNOW / NOTNOW before it happened. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

   Ritchie333 and SchroCat in fact my "why not" vote was worded "No reason to believe this user would abuse the tools." valereee (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

   So you didn't have a "why not" vote then! There are a few people who have only the three words "Support - why not?" and their signature. That's what we're talking about. - SchroCat (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

   This week's culprits are easily found, aren't they. Perhaps folks could mix it up a bit with "Support - of course", "Support - you bet", "Support - no question" or even, for reasons of greater economy, "Support - unquestionably"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

   SchroCat, okay, I was thinking of it as a semantic difference, but I take your point. I do have requirements; maybe I should detail them more thoroughly in !votes if for no other reason than to show what this one editor thinks the requirements should be. The whole process just pisses me off, is probably the problem. valereee (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

   I wholeheartedly agree that it’s not a great system (or the use is t great: it’s fine to badger Oppose votes, but if anyone questions the rationale behind “why not”, there are accusations of being disruptive. This should either be a discussion with rationales or a straight vote, not some uneven hybrid of the two. I dearly wish the clerks would ignore (or remove ALL votes that did not provide a sensible rationale one way or the other. - SchroCat (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

   Weak Oppose - Seems like a good editor, but I do have to agree with the other opposes. I might change my mind overtime. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

   I have moved to Support. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

10. Oppose. I am not seeing a real need for the tools and I'm seeing a great dearth of administrative-type activity. It seems as if the tools would be merely a convenience, and since we do not hand out the tools individually, I'm not yet comfortable with handing the whole toolset to this candidate. I share the concerns of TonyBallioni and Oshwah, among others. Scripts are one thing, but adminship is quite another. Softlavender (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Evad has certainly provided us with some useful tools, not to mentionn the extremely necessary 'move to draft' tool for New Page Reviewers. However, on 28 February last year he abruptly stopped editing and did not make a single edit until 8 April. It's not so much the hiatus which wasn't too long, but what gives me pause is the fact that the absence was not even accompanied by a "Hi guys, I'm afraid I won't be able to make it for a few weeks" and no replies to various emails while still shouldering a volunteered responsibility for a project. RL (and perhaps health) can certainly get in the way occasionally, but not necessarily to the extent of going AWOL without a word; it was nevertheless a great relief when he just as precipitously returned, safe and well. Concurring with other editors in this section, especially Softlavender, I feel that there is inconclusive activity in the expected areas for me to be able to ignore my usual criteria, and which has not really demonstrated a need for the tools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

    As you know, I dropped out last May and was completely incoginto for a few weeks. You know the reason why, because I told you via email, but I'm sure as hell not mentioning it on a public website. Sometimes, shit happens. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

    • I feel as though the same could be said about administrators who don't edit for almost a year, the requirement for an inactivity-based desysop, then either come back just to keep their tools, or just stop editing completely and lose their administrator toolset. For these reasons, I fail to understand how the nominee's activity level has any correlation to their aptitude to become an administrator, especially considering the aforementioned cases pertaining to administrators. Steel1943 (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
    • That isn't even two weeks! A single time a year ago. We aren't obliged to be on everyone's beck and call on this site, and there are many good reasons why someone may drop out for a few days without warning and not want to talk about why and I think that's a terrible reason to oppose. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

    Indeed. I was not in the right frame of mind to edit in the first two weeks of June 2018. Had I logged in, I'm convinced I would have violated WP:CIVIL and WP:INVOLVED somehow and been in real trouble. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

    Kudpung wasn’t saying that Evad37 needed to explain why he was absent, merely that it would have been better to mention on their talk page that they would be away (as indeed, Ritchie did). And a gap lasting from 28 February to 8 April is definitely more than “not even two weeks.” Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

    Comment This particular part of this thread borders on the WP:NOTRELEVANT - in the Australian editing community of which I am part of and evad is, there are admins who never indicate they are taking breaks when they do, or offer any reason for inactivity, and they are not sanctioned or penalised - I fail to see why an RFA of any editor should choose to even have this as a reason for support or not have this - while they coming from ordinary editor role - I have also been aware of where editors are tutored to not state their absences for a range of reasons - and in some cases breaks are obvious and of no detriment to any of the projects they are involved upon in wikipedia. What is more concerning is where editors cease editing and never acknowledge their 'retiring' or 'giving up' - in some cases the vanishing trick is far more concerning than simply having a break - there is nothing I have ever seen about compulsory reporting relating to wikibreaks.JarrahTree 23:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

    • Lack of announcing an absence in advance is a terrible reason to oppose. What if someone is suddenly hospitalised? Equally, lack of explanation on return is terrible because it is no-one's business but their own. - Sitush (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

    This is verging on a pile-on, and I'm going to join it. I personally disappeared for over four months last year without letting anyone know on-wiki; in my case, I'd just been through some stressful admin work and a one-week holiday ended with me finding I had no desire to come back. There was no censure, only a "I hope everything's okay" kind of comment on my TP. I don't see why we should oppose an RfA for doing the same for two weeks. We are all volunteers and all have other calls on our time (well, sometimes I wonder where the LTAs find the time, but you know what I mean). GoldenRing (talk) 09:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

    Feel that more heat than light is now being generated here. 'Crats will evaluate if required. Can this be moved to TP now? Leaky caldron (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

12. Oppose Not seeing a need for tools, and the lack of track record in Admin areas is concerning to me. Intothatdarkness 17:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
13. Oppose per TonyBallioni. I expect this RfA to succeed, but I'm not seeing a particular track record of being involved as a non-admin in areas of administrator action/interest. Make no mistake: Evad37 is a great contributor and their technical contributions especially are a wonderful asset to the project, but I don't see much if any need for them to hold the mop. -- a. ^{get in the spam hole | get nosey} 19:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
14. Oppose Inactivity in admin areas. --Miaow 19:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
15. Oppose With all due respect for Evad's technical skills, but I also expect an admin candidate to have regularly shown his face in admin related areas like AIV, RFPP, etc. Yintan  10:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

    I had 0 edits to AIV when I became an admin. While I've had the odd comment about assuming a bit more good faith than people would like, I don't think I've had complaints about the hundreds of AIV reports I've dealt with since getting the mop. Anyone who can write a FA can work at AIV with zero experience. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

    And I'm sure other people will have become admins with 0 edits in RFPP. Doesn't make my view any less valid, though. Also, at the time of your RfA, you were active in admin related areas (ANI, for example). When I say "admin related areas like AIV, RFPP, etc", don't overlook the etc at the end of that sentence. Thanks. Yintan  15:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I have no doubt that Evad37 is technically competent, and his experience with the creation and improvement of widely-used user scripts speak very loudly here. However, I have reservations with promoting someone purely based on those competencies alone - mostly due to the user rights that are bundled with the administrator rights (and, in a way and technically speaking, the interface administrator rights). His XfD Closer script is awesome, but I see very little XfD participation (creating a script to automate the different options, and showing accuracy and judgment with participation are two different things in my mind), and no AIV participation at all. Evad37 listed being able to protect important and highly transcluded and used templates and modules in his response to Q1, but going back over two years in his contributions to the Wikipedia namespace, I only saw a total of 10 requests that he filed at RFPP (which leads me to question the actual need for having the tools). We have the test Wikipedia project and even the beta Wikimedia cluster that can be used to design and test scripts before having someone move it into production here. I know that, together, these places aren't exactly 100% the same as this project. I've had to test a few script-related things here in a couple of rare circumstances myself. But we're talking about giving admin rights to someone with (what I'm seeing) little experience in areas that I'd consider prerequisite requirements for anyone before they're promoted, so they can make edits to pages restricted to interface admins. No system is absolutely perfect, and I'd call the interface administrator requirements one of them. Is this a request that, given the demonstrated need and intended use of the tools, I should overlook my traditional feelings and support? Is having coding, scripting, and technical competence something that, given the interface admin requirements, should be seen as a reason alone to support? This is something I'm going to have to mull over and sleep on... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
2. Neutral This is a great editor in the areas they have extensively worked in, and I really wanted to support them. But like Tony and Oshwah I am not convinced they have the breadth of experience I prefer in a candidate for the mop. I can't find anything that I would label as a red flag and cause me to oppose. But there is not enough to persuade me to pull the trigger for them either. In the event this doesn't work, I would almost certainly support a 2nd run if they spent maybe six months working in some of the more common adminny areas. See also my criteria for RfA candidates. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

   Neutral I share the concerns of others regarding whether Evad has the experience needed to become an admin but we'll see how my questions are answered. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 06:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC) Unfortunately, Ill have to oppose at this time RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 15:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

   Noooooooooooooooooooooooo! — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 13:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

   Damn, I'd planned on posting this here just to see what the mob anti-placeholders would do Nosebagbear (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

   Neutral The balancing act that candidates have to walk these days would provide difficulty even for the The Great Farini. What with must have GA, FA, so many edits, years experience, author of so many articles, etc., we now must have experience in Admin areas. On the one hand (although the 2019 version has not arrived, yet) we have the regular hue and cry about not enough Admin candidates of sufficient quality willing to submit RfA and when an apparently half suitable guy throws his hat into the ring (apologies for the second circus metaphor) he is too technical. Too many hoops more like! Someone in the support zone I would not usually ally myself with said they need the tools to support intended technical work. No doubt technical work is important. It follows that an occasional qualified technical candidate should be admitted to the hallowed ranks where mere mortals can only [plagiarism warning] peep about to find ourselves dishonorable graves. All that said, I have no idea whether he is either qualified or needed. Leaky caldron (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

3. Neutral per Oshwah. Bishonen | talk 13:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC).
4. Neutral per Oshwah, who summarizes my concerns excellently. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
5. Neutral Regretfully I have to land here. I am impressed with the candidate's skillset, and am confident that they will be a net positive as an interface admin, but I am uncomfortable with the lack of experience in basically any admin areas. I must unfortunately agree with comments by both Oshwah and TonyBallioni; ultimately I can't oppose, but I have enough reservations that I can't support. Should this RFA pass, and it should, I hope that the candidate takes these issues into account, and based on their responses to the questions I have confidence that they will. Best of luck and early congratulations. CThomas³ (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
6. Neutral. Mulled this one over for a few days now. I'm not going to oppose because the candidate is clearly a competent technical user who is of great benefit to the project (and no doubt will continue to be so with the iAdmin rights), but I can't see enough activity in the quasi-admin areas (XfD etc.) for me to support either. That kind of lands me here. It looks like this will pass anyway, so good luck Evad! — sparklism ^hey! 07:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

General comments

• @SemiHypercube: In response to your question above, see Evad37's response to question 1: I would apply for interface administrator, if successful with this RfA, so I could help with gadget and user js/css requests --DannyS712 (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

  DannyS712, I struck my question (more embarrassing that that was the first question I've ever asked at rfa) SemiHypercube 01:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

  @SemiHypercube: I just didn't want Evad to need to point it out - don't be embarrassed, everyone makes mistakes. The only reason I didn't ask that same question was because I read the entire nomination yesterday, and drafted my questions ahead of time. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Given that the candidate is being presented as a content builder, I'm concerned about the trends in their edit counts to mainspace over the years. Unless I'm misreading these formed ~30% of total edits in 2012–15, fell to 16% in 2016, and then to 2–4% in 2017–date; proportions don't necessarily mean anything but the total annual mainspace edits in 2017 & 2018 appear to be 215 & 172, respectively, and they have not made >100 monthly edits to article space since 2016. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. I would encourage Evad37 to ignore the question about the meaning of their username, as it is not germane to the merits of their being given admin tools. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The Colonel's question looks highly relevant. Granting adminship is about trust, and there's much insight one can gain into an editors character from understanding a username. That said, I strongly agree with you on the general principle that candidates need not answer questions if they so chose. Especially with the loaded &/or controversy laden questions where it's hard to answer without sparking opposes from one faction or another. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The Colonel only appears when things have become too silly and need to stop being so. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The asker of the question never supports any nominees AFAIK,(which they are of course free to do) so I doubt their support hinges on the answer to the question. If one does not trust a user because of their username, there is likely some other more relevant reason to not trust them. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

This is nonsense. The only thing that matters is whether or not their username adheres to policy. No one should feel entitled to the meaning behind someone else's username, and the individual who constantly asks for such information should perhaps focus on more important matters. Nihlus 10:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

You can't psychoanalyse someone from their username—often a quickly-chosen random stream of characters, re-rewritten to be unique. I agree that the user should feel no compulsion to answer the question. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 10:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Certainly no one should feel entitled to an answer to a personal question. Equally though, it's not offensive or particulary probing, is potentially useful, and it's perplexing why it's sparked such a reaction. At least we all seem to agree the candidate should feel free not to answer if they so chose. @Ritchie, thanks for the humour, though as I understand you've had the privelige of meeting the Colonel in RL, I would have thought someone with your perceptiveness would see he has more in common with Colonel House than monty python! FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

As I indicated, the asker's support likely does not hinge on the answer to the question. It might be another matter if it did. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Though I think a good answer to the question might be sufficient to win the Colonel's support, and I'm possibly somewhat more familiar with him than yourself. The Colonel does sometimes support RfAs, e.g. here, though granted he also often opposes very good Canidates. Goes to show no one is perfect. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Evad has answered the question now anyway, so this discussion is moot.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The answer was not surprising but the details were informative as I had not understand what it meant. If one doesn't know what an account name means, then you can't be sure whether it is significant or not. And account names can be significant. For example, 331dot seems to block several accounts every day because of some issue with their account name. Andrew D. (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson, please explain how someone's username is relevant to determining their ability to be an effective administrator. Nihlus 15:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The meaning of my username is not relevant to my ability to read, understand, and apply the username policy, any more than the meaning of my real name would be. I've never been asked in a job interview(other than my RfA) what my name meant. 331dot (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The choice of a username can be for some, a very personal choice with personal meaning that, because others would largely not be privy to it if it were culturally unusual, would remain a secret known only to the user. The act of revealing that secret to others says something about the person. It says I am willing to extend trust to you by sharing a very small yet nevertheless personable fact about me that no one else knows because I want you to do the same and put your trust in me. Perhaps the editor who asked this question wanted to help in the RfA process but found the act of investigation of an editor's background daunting, or maybe, were perplexed by what qualities they should be looking for (does everyone here know about analyzing an editor's AfD stats, let alone how to do that?) so the best question they came up with was one where they hoped they could get a small insight into the person. I don't know if that was the case here, but I'd like to think so. Regards,  Spintendo  19:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough; but the focus should be on the merits of their being given admin powers and their ability to use them. Trust should be judged by the nomination and the nominee's edit history and behavior. If that isn't enough, the nomination should not be successful. The user who asked the question rarely supports nominees- which they are free to do- and I haven't seen an answer to that question asked of others be the difference in that user's support. The user is also quite capable of(and does) investigating nominees- they looked up my history for a post above(which, again, they are free to do). 331dot (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Reping due to my error Spintendo. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

There's a long & honourable tradition of asking frivolous questions at RfAs to probe how the candidate responds. Anyone can copy bland phrases from policy or mimic answers from previous successful RfAs, but off-the-wall questions can examine the candidate's response under stress, sense of humour, sense of proportion and other personal qualities relevant to adminship. They can also establish a real dialogue between the candidate and the readers, which engenders trust building. The 'crats are quite capable of ignoring opposes based on frivolous rationales. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Urgent plea: the oppose rationales above, while respected and actually very sound, in depth reasons to be neutral, should not be used to oppose the adminship of this candidate. Opposers are asked to turn them around into at best, support, or at least, neutral castings! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  17:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

  This is one of the strangest comments I have ever read at an RfA. Let people oppose for the reasons they wish. Nihlus 19:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

  At the very least it's certainly not an urgent matter. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

  I had originally planned mine to be a neutral but when I finished writing it realized it was an oppose. I do actually oppose this RfA because of my unofficial third criteria (have a record), but it isn't the same as opposing for something like being a jerk to people or making so many mistakes that giving someone the tools would be disruptive. Regardless, the point of RfA is for the community to vet whether or not we trust someone at this point in time with the admin toolset. I personally am not comfortable granting it without some experience in project space to point to, but I realize that other reasonable people can have a different view on this than me. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

  I understand and to a large degree agree with Paine Ellsworth's request above. There are criteria for adminship. Opposing for a reason not covered by the criteria usually comes down to one of two basic principles. "I dont trust this cadidate" which is a perfectly valid and reasonable oppose criterion, though it is usually more useful if sufficiently explained that the rest of us can see the point, and "I dont like it because I have my own special requirements for admins which are not on the list", which is a perfectly valid reason to abstain from supporting, but when used as an oppose, suggest that the person does not consider the consensus requirements for admin are valid. There is a distinction between lack of trust due to lack of evidence, and distrust, which is usually based on some evidence, or possibly paranoia. I see lack of trust due to lack of evidence as a resaon to abstain or declare as neutral if you feel you need to make a point. Distrust is a reason to oppose, but is open to speculation if not sufficiently explained. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

  Pbsouthwood, the only criteria is listed at WP:RfA: There are no official prerequisites for adminship other than having an account. Everything you said is essentially made up, just like every single criteria each individual has in what they see as necessary to become an administrator. Nihlus 11:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

  Isn't it strange that when I oppose candidates at RfA, nobody (broadly construed) bats an eyelid, but when Nihlus opposes someone he gets more badgering than a rural farm in the Cotswolds. It can't possibly be anything to do with the quality of arguments. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

  Ritchie333, I'm not being badgered by anyone, really. Please take your poor attempts at being edgy somewhere else where they might have a chance at being appreciated. Thanks. Nihlus 12:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

  Nihlus, That is my point, There are, as you quote, no official prerequisites other than having an account, and the perhaps unofficial, but fundamental requirement of having the trust of the community.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

  Pbsouthwood, people have different standards by which they judge potential admins. Who is anyone to say any of them are necessarily wrong? If you disagree with an oppose someone had made, then disagree in your head and move on. If you believe someone has opposed a nomination for something outlandish (e.g. liking the color blue), then bring it up to the bureaucrats. But to bludgeon that process or make "urgent pleas" to the opposers only stifles discussion. No one benefits from it; it only serves to distract from the point the opposers are trying to make (which is seemingly the intent of those who bludgeon). Nonetheless, this is off-topic to Evad37's RfA, so I won't be making any more comments. Others undoubtedly will though. Nihlus 12:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

  Sorry if your mind won't be changed or if I'm "stifling" your discourse. I was just pointing out in a wanting sort of way what Peter Southwood said so much better. If you distrust a candidate and have evidence to support your distrust, then you have a valid oppose rationale. If you simply just have a lack of trust due to lack of evidence, then you have a valid neutral rationale. And to show what's really wrong with this process, there are several pile-on oppose !votes that agree with the rationales that should be neutral. What a load of! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  13:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

  [ec] This is the comments section. I am commenting on a previous comment and related metacomments. I think that is at least reasonably on-topic.
  Agreed, people have different standards. Some are reasonable and easily understood by others when stated. Some are not. A support basically says that the supporter trusts the candidate to do those parts of the job they choose to do responsibly and in line with the better traditions of the community. No detailed explanations are really needed. A neutral means that one has doubts, or lacks sufficient confidence and wants others to know it, An abstention could mean the same as neutral but does not feel the need to make it public, or does not care, or maybe does not even know there is an RfA going on. An oppose is a vote of no confidence. It may mean that the opposer knows a good and valid reason why the candidate should not be allowed to do the work they are volunteering for, or they have decided that they will try to impose their own requirements on the community, or they don't like the candidate, or they are trolling, or some other reason, good or bad, which is not usually obvious to everyone else. It is not unreasonable to ask those people to explain their reasoning if they have not done so already. That is just due diligence.
  As to who is to say whether someone else's reasons are wrong, that is the purpose of reason and logic. If one applies reason and logic to the explanation of an opposer, and finds that the reasons or logic don't hold up, then it is due diligence to say so, unless someone else has already done so. To apply reason and logic effectively, it may be necessary to get clarification, which usually involves asking questions. Bludgeoning and badgering may be more in the eye of the beholder than in the intention of the questioner. It is often largely a matter of style. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment All of this talk by opposers about a "need" for the tools I don't buy. Do you trust that the candidate will abuse the tools or not? That in my mind is the only question. If you give him the mop and he doesn't use it a lot, how does that hurt anything? --rogerd (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  That is something I've always wondered about. To support means you trust the candidate, to oppose means you distrust the candidate, and to be neutral means there is not enough evidence to decide either way. So it's not really about the candidate's "need" for the tools, it's really about whether or not the candidate can be trusted with the tools. It seems that some editors harbor the additional "Does the candidate 'need' the tools?" prerequisite. Does that not cloud the issue? I mean, we all "need the tools" sometimes, and those of us who are not admins find one who does have the tools to help us. So it appears that need for the tools is a false criterion, doesn't it? Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  06:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  I agree. Nobody needs the tools, and everybody would find the tools helpful, so neither "needs the tools" nor "the tools would help them do X" are valid arguments for or against an RfA in my opinion. I agree the core question is "can be trusted with the tools". Leviv ich 22:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• It seems to me that some conflict is caused by the non-independence of the interface admin bit from the admin bit. It's a topic that seems to come up every time interface adminship is mentioned on an RfA. Samsara 09:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

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.