m Fix. |
→Support: support |
||
Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
#'''Support''' based on the strength of the nomination and the fine contributions of the candidate. If I see a sensible reason to oppose presented I may change my mind, but I have not seen it yet. [[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="color:SaddleBrown">HighInBC</b>]] 23:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' based on the strength of the nomination and the fine contributions of the candidate. If I see a sensible reason to oppose presented I may change my mind, but I have not seen it yet. [[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="color:SaddleBrown">HighInBC</b>]] 23:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
#Widr is a trustworthy editor who would be hugely beneficial to us as an administrator. This is a very easy support. [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 00:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC) |
#Widr is a trustworthy editor who would be hugely beneficial to us as an administrator. This is a very easy support. [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 00:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' - Looking at their record, I can see no real issue with making him an admin. Yes, they could have a stronger article creation record, yes they could have participated more in AfD. (One thing I'm not sure how to research is an editor's activity on AfC - to me, AfC is a more vital process than AfD, as it is where new content creators can be nurtured). Like Widr, I do a lot of anti-vandalism, which I consider very important. While I rarely get involved in AIV, another very important place. There is room at the admin level for all sorts of folks. I think they would make valuable contributions to helping with many of the mundane tasks admins are required to do. [[User:onel5969|<b><font color="#536895">Onel</font><font color="#FFB300">5969</font></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:Onel5969|<i style="color:blue">TT me</i>]]</sup> 00:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
=====Oppose===== |
=====Oppose===== |
Revision as of 00:28, 19 March 2016
Widr
(talk page) (34/2/4); Scheduled to end 18:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Nomination
Widr (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you User:Widr for your consideration as an administrator. I've known and worked with Widr for over two years. With over 200,000 contributions, 250+ articles created, it's safe to say his experience and hours put into the project is beyond what many of us may ever achieve. A quick glance at his talk page archives demonstrates his calm manner and ability to work with new users, even when faced with the most fierce of backlashing vandals. Meanwhile a 93% accuracy rate at AfD shows a strong understanding of policy.
On the counter-vandalism front, Widr is one of the best in the fleet. I work roughly during the same hours as he does, and can attest to the accuracy of his AIV reports. Not having the block and protect buttons is a detriment to the project as it transfers the workload to other admins, when Widr is perfectly qualified to handle it himself – while also lending a much needed hand in processing others' reports. That makes him a net-positive, but I think as an admin he'll far exceed that classification.
Given the nature of his work, Widr has a very high automated edit count in the mainspace. I used my own tool to compute the stats and have posted them on the talk page. I want to point out that if you discount the counter-vandalism numbers from STiki, rollback, and Huggle, we're looking at 12764 total edits. That brings his non-automated contribs percentage to 66% in the mainspace, a quite respectable figure. That aside, the 100,000+ counter-vandalism edits profoundly confirms his dedication and diligence in protecting the wiki. This is what the admin toolset is primarily for, and I envision Widr's propserity in this regard will be nothing short of prolific.
Overall I believe Widr will be a fine addition to admin squadron. I don't worry about him exercising tools in areas he's uncomfortable with; his interests are well-defined, only his potential is hampered without the additional toolset. Thank you for your time — MusikAnimal talk 15:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for the kind words, MusikAnimal. I'm happy to accept. Widr (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I will mainly focus on AIV. That's the area I have been working in and around for most of my time here, and the one that is usually backlogged and always in need of extra eyes. I expect to visit UAA and RFPP occasionally, partly because some of the reports at AIV will have to be dealt with at other venues and partly because I already visit them frequently. Generally I'm not likely to jump head-first into unknown waters, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't one day be tempted to operate out of my comfort zone.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I'm happy to have been able to create some kind of coverage for several Finnish actors, singers, bands and other subjects who deserve a little bit of recognition in this project too, even if those articles have mostly remained more or less stubbish so far. Other than that, my contributions tend to be gnome-like fixes here and there, nothing spectacular enough to be raised above the rest of my maintenance work. I believe that preserving the current quality of content is equally important as creating new quality content, so to me it only seems logical that I have also filed over 2000 vandalism reports at AIV during my years here.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: Apart from occasional misunderstandings that come with the territory when dealing with vandalism, I have not been in conflicts. This is largely because I avoid such situations and have never been drawn to unnecessary drama. Like for most volunteers, Wikipedia is just a hobby for me, something that I often do while I'm doing ten other things at the same time. I can see no reason to stress over a hobby. In real life, and online too, I always think before I act (or press preview before I hit the save button), which also significantly reduces my chances of getting into conflicts.
You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.
- Additional question from Hchc2009
- 4. Widr, it's important to me that potential administrators have adequate experience in researching and writing articles. Is there any particular article you would highlight as evidence of what you have achieved as a content creator?
- A: There is obviously room for improvement in all of the articles I have created. I'm the first to admit that none of them are nowhere near GA or FA quality, but that has never even been my intention. As I see it, having a stub is far better than nothing at all, and when time allows, chances are that more will come, either from myself or from someone else. Instead of naming one particular article, I'd like to mention some of the ones that have been on my to-do list for expansion for quite some time. Actor Hannes Häyrinen; basic things are already present, but there could be more focus on the details of his career. Actress Regina Linnanheimo should also have more coverage, especially because of her work with director Teuvo Tulio. I created the article for Tulio's last film Sensuela (one without Linnanheimo) and have been planning to do the same for the rest of his films as well. Of my most recent articles, the one for album En kommentoi is in slow development, as it is a current one and has potential for future updates.
- Additional question from Liz
- 5. Widr, it is surprising for me to read your statement
"Like for most volunteers, Wikipedia is just a hobby for me, something that I often do while I'm doing ten other things at the same time."
I think this is because when I edit Wikipedia, it is the only thing I am concentrating on. Can you see the likelihood of error if you are deleting pages or blocking editors when you are just giving the process a fraction of your attention? You are obviously prolific but I don't think in admin activities, speed is a desirable quality. - Second question, the community needs to be able trust you to be thorough and circumspect in performing administrative tasks. When you make mistakes, you can expect them to be brought to your attention, so some conflict is unavoidable. Can you start focusing on quality over quantity?
- A: I rarely focus only on Wikipedia even though I'm online for several hours every day and keep Wikipedia pages open most of those hours. It doesn't mean that I'm not paying attention at those moments when I'm undoing vandalism or adding a missing comma somewhere. My statement simply means that, as this is a volunteer work, I can't give Wikipedia my 100% attention all the time. Basically, a Wikipedia page might be open, but I don't necessarily look at it, if I'm doing my "real" work, paying bills, or something similar. But I would not be blocking anyone or deleting anything either then. Mistakes and misunderstandings are inevitable in the wikiworld, and happen to everyone at times, whether we concentrate or not. Good thing is that here they are hardly beyond repair and that we usually learn from them. As for the second question, yes, I am happy to be informed of any mistakes that I have made, even if it's just a misclick or a missed piece of vandalism. Furthermore, I have no intentions to perform any admin tasks without thorough research. I'm pretty sure there are no conflicts that could not be settled through discussions, and I will also keep focusing on quality, just like I have tried to do until now.
Discussion
- Links for Widr: Widr (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Widr can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.
Support
- As nominator — MusikAnimal talk 18:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Incredible vandalism fighter, tireless for five years. In an ideal world all of our administrators would have written longer articles on major topics, participated extensively in AfD, etc. etc. etc., but sometimes well-lopsided is as good as well-rounded, and I trust that Widr will work on the parts of the encyclopedia that he knows best and take some of the admin responsibilities for vandalism fighting off admins who'd rather work on other parts of the site. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Another user that I thought was an admin already. I have had occasions to work with Widr at times in clearing vandalism, and fell they are an excellent choice to handle the duties of adminship. They would be a welcome addition to the admin team here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes yes yes! As an admin who works at AIV I'd love to have Widr on board. BethNaught (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support. His dedication to fighting vandalism is impeccable, and it will be extremely useful when he is an admin. His record of content creation is great, too. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Candidate seems dedicated and qualified for admin work. I am especially impressed by the civility, helpfulness, and general demeanor of the responses to and discussion with editors who comment on his talk page. TheBlinkster (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support - The mop will allow Widr to be even more productive. —DoRD (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 2) This is coming way too late. For those of you who need more reason then that, look at Widr's articles and counter-vandalism record in general, and to top it off there's no reason to oppose. Kharkiv07 (T) 18:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it's about time. De728631 (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Have often come across this editor at WP:AIV and during recent changes patrol. Trusted user who will make good use of the tools. utcursch | talk 18:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support: Why not after six figures of reverts? I trust the candidate not to close AfDs, so lack of participation is not a concern. Esquivalience t 18:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support: I aplaud his initiative to become an admin. Experienced, dedicated and responsible. I believe he deserves the trust of the community and I am convinced that with the tools he will be an even greater asset to our project.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support - For some reason I thought he already was an admin so was a bit surprised to see the RFA, Anyway excellent candidate, No issues, Good luck :) –Davey2010Talk 19:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support, will make an excellent administrator. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support per above. Note: (IMO) protecting existing Wikipedia content is now at least as important as adding new content. DexDor (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent vandal fighter, no qualms whatsoever. Overall I see Widr as a helpful person who should be trusted with these tools. --Ches (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support - We will rarely get a better candidate for administrator. Highly experienced both in creating articles and in dealing with vandals, we are lucky to have people like this around. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support TeriEmbrey (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support Wait, Widr isn't an admin already?! Datbubblegumdoe[talk – contribs] 20:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support Very appropriate and qualified, continue preserving Wikipedia as best you can.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 20:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support About time Widr ran for RFA. Fine vandal fighter that's experienced with admin-work. Only oppose !vote, as of this writing, doesn't convince me. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support I don't think that I can say anything for myself on my reasoning, particularly with this case, do I? Dschslava (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support Upon review, I see no reason to oppose. Any gaps in experience can be picked up on the job. I don't foresee Widr breaking the Wikipedia if given the tools. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support I was also surprised to realise that Widr wasn't already an admin. I believe that he would be an excellent wielder of the tools. --bonadea contributions talk 22:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support I admire his enthusiasm and hard work. He is a suitable candidate for promotion as an administrator. Prof TPMS (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support The key question at an RfA is whether the candidate has clue. "Experience" is mostly a heuristic to evaluate clue. Getting caught up in counting how many stubs and how many GAs and how many AfDs and how many OMGWTFBBQs is mistaking the map for the territory. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- And so how is Opabinia regalis measuring this clue, please? When I review the candidate's edits, it seems hard to discern the clue because they are mostly mechanical. For example, consider this revert. What's that all about? Where is the clue? Andrew D. (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Logged-out editors may not place numbered votes. BethNaught (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- And so how is Opabinia regalis measuring this clue, please? When I review the candidate's edits, it seems hard to discern the clue because they are mostly mechanical. For example, consider this revert. What's that all about? Where is the clue? Andrew D. (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Strong contributor to Wikipedia already, his work (and Wikipedia overall) will only be enhanced by giving him a mop. —C.Fred (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support Never come across this user personally, but their experience looks great. Very active in vandal fighting (especially using automated tools), and has been for some time. Also active in New page patrolling. Would speed up the process a lot if he was given a block and delete button. One thing that he could use is more experience at Articles for Deletion, but that's understandable because it obviously isn't his top area of work. None of the votes in the oppose section have convinced me to not support. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 23:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support Seems very experienced in fighting vandalism, and I wouldn't expect him to misuse admin tools intentionally or from lack of experience. R. A. Simmons Talk 23:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support Experienced and qualified candidate. People who do cleanup work and fight vandalism often clear the way for those who focus more on content creation. It takes all kinds here. INeverCry (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support based on the strength of the nomination and the fine contributions of the candidate. If I see a sensible reason to oppose presented I may change my mind, but I have not seen it yet. HighInBC 23:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Widr is a trustworthy editor who would be hugely beneficial to us as an administrator. This is a very easy support. Kurtis (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Looking at their record, I can see no real issue with making him an admin. Yes, they could have a stronger article creation record, yes they could have participated more in AfD. (One thing I'm not sure how to research is an editor's activity on AfC - to me, AfC is a more vital process than AfD, as it is where new content creators can be nurtured). Like Widr, I do a lot of anti-vandalism, which I consider very important. While I rarely get involved in AIV, another very important place. There is room at the admin level for all sorts of folks. I think they would make valuable contributions to helping with many of the mundane tasks admins are required to do. Onel5969 TT me 00:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose I liked the sound of the creation of hundreds of articles but then notice that the candidate is too coy to point to any of them as an example of good work. My impression is that they are all similar to Tuuliajolla. I'd like to see some evidence of competence with more substantial topics whose sources are in English. Andrew D. (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Hardly coy; he draws attention himself to the fact that they "have mostly remained more or less stubbish so far." Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 20:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Coy has various shades of meaning. In this case, the usage is "Reluctant to give details about something regarded as sensitive". Myself, I've written a bunch of pages which are still stubs. I would not have similar difficulty in pointing to one which I liked or considered worthy of inspection. For example, see aluminium powder, BMG movement or chocolate biscuit. If the candidate has written hundreds of stubs but can't or won't point to a single one of them then this indicates that he doesn't think much of them himself. Andrew D. (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Frankly, I think this is an entirely ridiculous reason not to give someone adminship. So, he creates stubs. So what? They aren't vandalism and they aren't disruptive, so what's the big deal if he doesn't do a particularly incredible job? Any user can make a page, and it's not like giving him admin privileges would somehow make it any worse. Furthermore, not thinking much of oneself should not preclude one from being an admin. R. A. Simmons Talk 21:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please do not badger editors. It's fine to ask questions about the rationale for someone's vote but it's not the place for arguments. The bureaucrat assessing this RfA will determine whether or not this reason is ridiculous. Liz Read! Talk! 21:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- With respect Liz I think this is very much the place to argue. This is not a vote but a discussion and by challenging each others rationales we give the 'crats the context they need. Just my take on RfA, which is based on the wording of the policy. HighInBC 23:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- I encourage rasimmons to speak his mind as, even though he is new here, he gets a vote like everyone else. As he does not seem to have created any pages yet, he perhaps does not appreciate what admins and others tend to do to them. For example, I recently started the page Colonel Johnson. As far as I'm concerned, this is coming along nicely but that's not good enough for the admin Fram who scolded me at length recently for not doing more. Admins such as Fram don't just scold; they also pull and delete articles which don't meet their high standards. As admins wield such power, it seems important to me that they understand the finer points of article creation and construction. Fram has such competence and so keeps us on our toes. Editors who are still learning the ropes are not ready for this. Andrew D. (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Andrew Davidson, I realise now that my comment may have been a bit poorly worded. Thanks for assuming good faith (and defending my statement), though, and I appreciate the explanation. I certainly see your point better now. I think that, looking at the nominee's record, I doubt that he would be too strict regarding page deletion, but I understand your concern for sure. R. A. Simmons Talk 23:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please do not badger editors. It's fine to ask questions about the rationale for someone's vote but it's not the place for arguments. The bureaucrat assessing this RfA will determine whether or not this reason is ridiculous. Liz Read! Talk! 21:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Hardly coy; he draws attention himself to the fact that they "have mostly remained more or less stubbish so far." Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 20:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose, it would be a mistake to make a stub creator an admin. Eric Corbett 22:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Is there any reason to think that an editor who has created stubs is more likely to misuse admin tools (or less likely to make good use of admin tools) than an editor who has never created a stub? DexDor (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Eric: Might I ask why you say that? R. A. Simmons Talk 23:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think Eric prefers that an admin have dozens of featured articles. Personally I am far more concerned with how they interact with others. HighInBC 00:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Neutral
- I want to support this strong anti-vandal candidate, but I'm concerned about Widr's AfD stats. Only 19 AfD !votes ever, and only 1 in the last 12 months. I'm a little confused by the points in the nom statement
and one of the votes(misread vote, struck) arguing that Widr has a strong AfD background. I don't think that's an accurate assessment. I could be persuaded otherwise based on how the questions and other remarks turn out as this RfA develops. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)- Meh. The record for those 19 looks good to me. If RfA voters keep insisting that every candidate have massive experience in every facet of Adminship, there will be no candidates. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that the record looks good for those 19, which is why I went neutral instead of oppose. AfD is just that important. As Widr himself indicates, while he sees his area of participation staying pretty consistent, a lot can change after you get the mop. See, the problem for me is that Widr's experience in admin areas is mostly confined to areas with very little discretion. While that means errors stand out a lot easier, it also means the rules are much easier to learn. AfD and similar processes test discretionary understanding of policies much more rigorously. I believe there is the same rationale behind wanting article writing experience: A lot of different policies and guidelines go into evaluating whether an article is notable or good, whereas about two or three fairly similar ones factor into the vast majority of AIV cases. I don't mean to denigrate those tasks: They need to be done, and increasingly we need more people to do them. Even so, my concern is that since we're giving him the ability to delete, we be assured he know when to delete as of today, rather than as of 12 months ago. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Meh. The record for those 19 looks good to me. If RfA voters keep insisting that every candidate have massive experience in every facet of Adminship, there will be no candidates. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral - I've seen Widr around A LOT on Wikipedia, and he makes very good contributions. However, Widr's AFD record is causing me to put on the brakes for now and sit in "no man's land" for a bit. I'm going to examine Wildr's CSD record (List of all CSD notifications left by Widr) and his contributions a bit more in-depth, and make a decision afterwards. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The reasoning here seems a little thin. We should look at what he does well, and his skills in working against vandalism are very strong. I don't think that it's a requirement for an admin to work in every sector of Wikipedia, and I've certainly seen many who essentially focus on a single section. It's clear that he has some experience in AfD, and that's enough for me. He probably won't be doing much AfD anyway, so what's the big deal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasimmons (talk • contribs) 21:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Rasimmons - I agree with you to some extent; I absolutely do not expect any user to contribute to every single area of Wikipedia. Lets not be silly, here :-). However, administrator tools come with multiple technical abilities, and I don't believe that it's unreasonable to expect that RfA candidates demonstrate their knowledge and long-term proficiency with the intended use of the tools that would be granted. One such tool is the deletion of articles. A solid AFD record (to me) is a fair and reasonable expectation; AFDs demonstrate a candidate's involvement in a common process, and they provide a good way for the community to understand the candidate's thought process with common Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I will echo what I previously said: I'm simply halting the brakes. Not having a strong AFD record is not a means for an "oppose" in my opinion. I just need to examine Wldr's contributions in other areas to determine that his understanding in the article deletion area is solid. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Neutral The editor's reverted a lot of edits by vandals, but has very little experience in content creation or research - over five years or so they have created various stubs, but apparently no substantive work or engagement in GAs etc. I'm therefore not convinced I would trust thieir judgement as an admin outside the narrow area of counter-vandalism. Hchc2009 (talk)
- Neutral An average of one edit per page. Across 200K edits. Clearly, the candidate is built only for routine administrative work and has no interest whatsoever in building an encyclopedia. One would expect an administrator to have walked in the shoes of the editors he is administering. And with a statement like, "I avoid such situations and have never been drawn to unnecessary drama" is utterly disappointing, providing evidence he does not wish to interact with the community in a meaningful way. No one should trust this candidate to have any wisdom to make dispute resolution calls. We probably can't trust him to answer MoS, guideline, or policy questions. The stats prove that the idea of focusing on building a single article of at least 500 words, perfectly sourced and formatted, is the last thing the candidate has a desire to do. However, the candidate does know how to touch one article and move on to the next one better than anyone. Clearly, the candidate is built only for routine administrative work. So maybe he should be given the tools for that reason alone. But when it's my turn to be raked over the coals at an RfA, I will have a much more well-rounded resume than this. Prhartcom (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
General comments
At [1], you inadvertently restored some vandalism that was originally carried out in September. The edit changed the language from one false value to another. The hymnal is quite obviously not in Sesotho and I'm just wondering if an opportunity was missed to correct that. I'm inclined to support you, but as an open queStion to everyone here, would we normally expect a vandal reversion to take a bit more care over exactly what was being reverted? Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe it should have been caught earlier by someone in the past six months, given the blatant edit summary. Vandalism reversal undoes the most recent change(s). Sometimes, unfortunately, it gets reverted to another wrong version. Many times this can go unnoticed, as not everyone can be knowledgeable enough to make decisions on every subject. I've done it, seen it done over me, and have over-reverted highly experienced editors who have missed a minor detail.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)