Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Choess

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

Choess

Final (77/8/5); Originally scheduled to end 19:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Choess (talk · contribs) - Choess has been contributing to Wikipedia since April 2005. The articles he has written reflect a serious level of research, his interactions with other users are always thoughtful and patient, and his work in the Wikipedia namespace demonstrates a firm grasp of policy. One of the most important qualities of a good admin is the willingness to spend tremendous amounts of one's own free time on largely thankless tasks, and Choess has been doing that for years. I also think the fact that he didn't ask anyone for this nomination means he's ready for it, and will use the tools wisely. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Co-nom: Choess is a great contributor to Wikipedia and is always a pleasure to work with. He regularly contributes to AfDs, CfDs, RfCs and GA noms to name a few [1]. With over 3 years of "service" and over 24,000 edits, I believe Choess would make a good admin and would benefit from having (and use for the greater good) the admin tools. Craigy (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I'm pleased and honored to accept. I initially told Craigy I wasn't sure—it wasn't something I'd been thinking about—but when Kafziel concurred as well, I thought I might as well put myself to the judgment of the community. Should it be favorable, I doubt I'll be a very high-profile administrator, but I think I'll use the tools discreetly and carefully to better the parts of the encyclopedia where I work. Choess (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: My work is likely to be somewhat circumspect until I've had some time for new administrator training. I will probably use the mop mostly to defend the numerous articles and areas where I've already worked—the occasional spot of semi-protection where warranted, maybe a block of very obvious sockpuppets (I follow WP:AN/I pretty closely, and I'm not very eager to start hitting that button), uncontroversial or consensus page moves, and so forth. I might like to get involved in CfD with the guidance of User:BrownHairedGirl, with whom I've worked before. Choess (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

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

A: I can think of a number of answers to that question. The nomination statement links to my portfolio of articles worked on; my favorites in terms of content are probably Nittany Furnace, Bellefonte Central Railroad, Lehigh Crane Iron Company and Gaylussacia brachycera. The first three are rather detailed articles on industries of Centre County and Lehigh County, Pennsylvania which, while now largely forgotten, played an important role in local history during their time. The articles are thorough, comprehensive, and (I like to think) reasonably well-written. The last article is a new one; I took a picture of the plant to put on Commons, started looking up information about it to write a stub, and it turned out to have such a compelling story it deserved a lengthy article. I've also compiled some fairly extensive lists of officeholders; I've done substantial work on List of Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, while List of Gentlemen Ushers is entirely my own compilation (from Bucholz and the London Gazette), and almost all the entries in our lists of Lord Lieutenants have either been entered or checked by me against Sir John Sainty's work. As far as I know, none of these lists has ever been published in its entirety elsewhere (Sainty's lists of Lord Lieutenants are spread across several publications), putting Wikipedia ahead of the curve. Finally, I've placed succession boxes on innumerable articles about British peers and officials. I think succession boxes are pretty nifty, quite frankly. I know in reading paper encyclopedias, I find it annoying when it says "So-and so was appointed to the sinecure of Teller of the Exchequer in...", without saying what that meant or who was Teller before or after him. The boxes help sum up when people were going in and out of various offices, and let you browse down a list of holders more easily that with a list article. I think that's an excellent use of the advantages we have in writing a hypertext encyclopedia. Choess (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

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: My conscience is fairly clear on that score; within the past year, I do recall having had an unpleasant exchange with another user over the use of redlinks in disambiguation pages or something of that nature. I did satisfy his criteria, but only after some snide remarks in edit summaries; I really should have brought the question to the appropriate WikiProject or other discussion page rather than trading barbs. Probably my biggest stress occurred during The Troubles, when the mess spilled over into tendentious attacks from one side on various articles on baronets and minor nobility. Having tried to act as a voice of reason and put forward a sensible compromise, I finally lost patience and stopped editing those articles for about a month until things cooled down again. I'd probably do the same if it recurred, to be honest, albeit with less snark on my user page. By the time it got to ArbCom, four or five good, impartial admins had been unable to quench the flames, and I doubt my continued involvement would have made much of a difference. The nice thing about my interests is that:

• They're esoteric, so that they tend not to raise the level of insane shrieking nationalistic/political passion as, say, Macedonia. Or global warming.
• They're pretty varied (Pennsylvania history, railroad history, British officialdom, wildflowers), so that I can walk away from one for a while if other parties are waging nuclear edit-war in the subject. Choess (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from xenocidic

4. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A: I'll explain my thinking first, then the actions. The user may or may not be sincere. The vandalism after their "very constructive" contribution does not help. On the one hand, if the user is sincerely repentant, allowing the block to stand will probably frustrate them. On the other hand, professing good faith is not a magic "get out of jail free card"; letting people game the system by pretending to be constructive is something of a slap in the face to users like Alpha, Beta, and Delta. I would decline the unblock as follows: "I'm sorry, but I must decline to unblock. The fact that you have continued to insert vulgarities in the article after your 'very constructive' contribution is not encouraging. You are welcome to make productive contributions after the block expires. In the meantime, if you'd like to do something useful for Wikipedia, you might try drafting an article on a dentistry topic that interests you offline or on your talk page." If the user did, in fact, start doing useful work on their talk page, I would come in and lift the block early (although I wouldn't make that explicit). The bottom line is that it's a one-week block, and I don't think that's an unreasonable amount of time for someone with that kind of editing history to wait out. Choess (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from Cyclonenim^talk?

5. You've said that you follw WP:AN/I quite a lot, and that you're "eager to press the button". I'll presume that eager goes hand in hand with carefully in this case. Now for the question. A user called fgwgh24357 has recently been blocked for 24 hours regarding a 3RR violation, with no previous violations before this one. The user uses the {{unblock}} template and states they are sincerely sorry, it's never happened before and it won't happen again. Do you unblock the user, or enforce the block for the full 24 hours?

To clarify, Choess said "...and I'm not very eager to start hitting that button[.]" Craigy (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

A: Per Craigy, I think there's been some misinterpretation regarding my eagerness. I really can't give a more definite answer than "it depends". How belligerent was the user in the lead-up to the edit war? Was this part of a consistent pattern of behavior? Have they engaged in sub-3RR edit wars before? ("3RR is not an entitlement.") If it really didn't look "premeditated" and the user had a generally good record (no other 3RR blocks, generally dispassionate editing), I'd be willing to take it up with the original blocking admin and see if they objected to my unblock. Choess (talk) 02:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

6. When should cool-down blocks and/or user-requested blocks be initiated?

A: Er, they shouldn't. Policy, per WP:BLOCK. I suppose in theory there's some sort of bizarre, IAR situation where a user really does come off a "cool-down" block cooled down (editing drunk?), but it's not something I really see happening in practice. Choess (talk) 02:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from  Asenine 

7. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?

A: Well, the thing to do at this point is take it to the talk page and say, "Look, I have reliable sources for this change. What are the sources for the consensus version, and why do they contradict these sources?" I think I lean slightly towards saying the newbie is doing the right thing here — new information can always change consensus. Regardless, the most important thing to do is to bring things to the talk page and see what form the consensus takes after these sources have been considered. Until that's been sorted out, neither party, IMO, really has justification to keep reverting from the "wrong" version to their "right" version. Choess (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

8. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?

A: Hmmm. I can think of a few, although I confess the users weren't necessarily very annoyed:

• SkE (talk · contribs). He was adding "Hypertext Transfer Protocol" to the disambiguation page HTP; I managed to find a reference for his usage, and when he asked for some help with his articles, many of which had been proposed for deletion, I pointed him towards some of our more comprehensible content policies.
• Seneschally (talk · contribs). Things started off a little roughly here, as I suspected his article on Vice Great Seneschal of Ireland of being a hoax or some sort of promotional effort, and I AfD'd the article. I tried to explain my concerns to him as best I could and expressed my appreciation for his editing, not wanting to drive him off. Ultimately, he was able to clarify the nature of the office, I changed my rationale at the AfD to explain that I felt it was now adequately documented, and we parted on good terms. See his talk page and the AfD linked there for most of the exchange.
• Burkem (talk · contribs) Most of the material is on the now-deleted talk page. Maybe this is a bad example—it was ultimately unsuccessful—but I tried pretty strenuously to politely persuade the user that the genealogies linking him with Charlemagne were probably not reliable and to direct him towards more constructive article-writing activity on members of the Burke/de Burgh family.
• Veyklevar (talk · contribs) See talk page. There was an edit war on Coca tea; I originally took a bit of a hard line with him, trying to be even-handed in mediating a content dispute on the article talk page. Ultimately, the other user continued to harass Veyklevar, and the two of us wound up co-operating in identifying and blocking several of the other user's sock puppets.

I realize this is somewhat thin gruel, but it's what I have Choess (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

9. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?

A: They'll probably continue pretty much as normally; I don't have any really big plans that require the mop and bucket. As a result of feedback here, I will probably shift a bit more time into collaborative activities, which may, admittedly, sap article writing a bit, but that isn't contingent on the outcome of the RfA. Choess (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Anti fence-sitting question from Kmweber

10. Are cool-down blocks ever acceptable?

Um...isn't this already answered in question 6? Jon513 (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was...didn't see it them. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

A: I see people have called me out on basing my justification only on policy, which is reasonable enough, since I think that's only been part of the blocking policy for the past year or so. My opinion is based on the reason (presumably) it was written into policy: so-called "cool-down" blocks don't actually work very well. A few reasons:

• They tend to presume that the user's behavior was solely due to emotion, rather than reason, and that they'll repent of the whole affair once they stabilize emotionally. This isn't generally true; people who have run afoul of these blocks (to the best of my recollection) usually due so because they're arguing about something they really strongly believe in, and carry their behavior too far. They may moderate their behavior to avoid punishment, but if anything, the stigma of a block is likely to turn the emotional temperature up another notch. To put it another way, the sort of people with the equanimity to say, "I still believe really strongly in my cause, but I was intemperate and disruptive to put it that way, and you were right to block me for the duration" don't run wild across the 'pedia in the first place.
• There's an unnecessary air of condescension in the whole notion that also helps to raise the emotional temperature rather than cool it. "You are heated and irrational, my good man, while I am cool and collected. Let me apply my block-Taser to bring you to your senses." ZAP! This may be 100% true, but bringing it out in the open doesn't help.
• Cool-down blocks have also been a way of sneaking around blocking policy. "Is X being disruptive?" "Well, not quite...but really, he's embarrassing himself [and maybe his targets] saying things like that when he's so wrought up. I'll give him a cool-down block. For his own good, of course."

If people are genuinely disrupting the encyclopedia and can't be deterred, block them. But let's not drag psychotherapy and emotional analysis into the rationale. Choess (talk) 03:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Tiptoety ^talk

11 You have stated you are interested in working in areas related to protection, what is your philosophy on protection? (When would you use protection and for how long, why?)

A: I actually have a fairly specific instance in mind: there's one article on my watchlist that's had an anon-driven, slow-motion edit war running for the past few months. It's been semi-protected in the past, but the same players appear to have returned, and there's reason to think at least one of the anons has a conflict of interest. The latest edit war relates to the addition of an infobox to the article; it's an improvement (well, if you like infoboxes), but one side will use it to push an extreme POV; then the other side comes in, rolls it back, and pushes it a little too far to the other POV. The article is otherwise fairly mature and stable. There are other, productive contributions from at least one of the IPs. In a case like that, I'd say that once a suitable, NPOV version has been worked out on the talk page, semi-protection justifies the potential loss of incremental improvements by eliminating the perpetual oscillation from one POV to another. By comparison, my high edit count on Knight is largely a result of zapping juvenile vandalism a relatively short time after it appeared. I don't think there's any need to discuss protection for the article; it's just a high-profile article that's bound to get a certain amount of drive-by vandalism. Choess (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, clarification here. By "I don't think there's any need to discuss," I meant it would be silly even to ask to have it protected. The fact that for a few minutes or hours each week there's a vandalized version there is just a side-effect of our editing policies. I don't think it needs protection, semi- or otherwise. Choess (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Question from User:Stifle

12. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a building which is still standing be used on Wikipedia?

A. Only when there's little or no chance of obtaining a free photograph to replace it, or when the non-free photograph is used to illustrate some aspect of the building's architecture that has since been significantly modified. Examples might be a structure deep in a military base where photography was restricted or a private residence not visible from any public road. Choess (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Question from User:MBisanz

13. Are you open to recall? Do your criteria include an outside party to judge recall requests, such as the clerks in mine or some other independent group like the crats?

A. It figures that I would be answering this just as a thread about the supposed disintegration of the process appears on AN. The terms on your recall page certainly seem reasonable enough; as I've stated before, I don't really have a taste for the tremendously controversial, so I trust no mob will appear to administer Jedburgh justice for my use of the mop. I haven't really set up anything, however; I'd appreciate your advice on how you recruited clerks for your terms. Choess (talk) 03:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well basically, I looked around at people who appeared respected, fair, and unbiased, and whom I rarely edited with, this helped me pick people who I'd trust to do things, but who probably would not be involved in any future screw up I'd make. Thanks for the answer. MBisanz ^talk 09:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional question from NuclearWarfare:

14 Protection related question. I'll subdivide this question.

a. When is it acceptable to use article semi-protection?

A. working on answers to this and others...more later

b. When is it acceptable to use full aricle protection?

A.

c. What did you mean when you were talking earlier in question 11? Should you protect that article or not. If you shouldn't, then why did you bring it up in the first place?

A.

Optional questions from jc37

In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:

• 15. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:

• 15a. ...an editor to be blocked?

• A:

• 15b. ...a page to be protected?

• A:

• 15c. ...a page to be speedily deleted?

• A: I'm not going to recite all of the CSD, but I think the important points to remember in the CSD process are the need for peer review and the need to look for less stringent alternatives. By "peer review", I mean that both tagging and the actual speedy deletion should be independent assessments of whether the article really meets criteria. For the other, since the invention of Template:Prod, we've had an easily usable alternative for borderline-salvageable articles. And AfD, obviously, is a way to get buy-in from other members of the community when you think an article is probably delete-worthy but want to be certain. In practice, I'd say criteria G1 (patent nonsense) and A7 (web/biographical content with no assertion of importance) are probably the most likely to be abused in tagging, and require the most scrutiny from an admin deleting those articles. Sometimes things surprise even the good faith tagger. I seem to remember tagging one article (the deletion log for which I can't seem to find now, but Fort Gunnybanks probably represented the same content) which seemed totally hopeless. Over a year later, I realized it was in fact a very stubby and poorly written (2 sentences) description of "Fort Gunnybags", built by the California vigilantes in 1856. So it really does behoove us to carefully examine CSD-tagged articles and consider less dramatic actions. Choess (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• 15d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?

• A: As I see it, IAR is our way of acknowledging that no rule-based system is perfect. Even with the best possible set of policies, sometimes following them will produce a result that does not advance our goal of building an encyclopedia. To apply IAR, you need to demonstrate your understanding both of why the rule you propose to ignore supports the encyclopedia in the general case, and what particulars of the present case make that rule harmful. If you're invoking IAR against a rule you don't really agree with anyway, you're probably moving into dangerous waters. You should also be confident that the case you've made will appeal to editors in general, not just those who share your opinions, and you should make your action with care and humility, and be prepared to reverse yourself if the community does not accept your reasoning. Choess (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• 16. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.

• A:

• 17. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

• A: First, check the article to see if this is really happening, and check the article talk page, to see if there have been any efforts at dispute resolution. If people have passed 3RR, I might ask JohnQ to file a report at WP:AN/3RR so that it's properly logged. It would probably also be good to see if anyone's operating under community sanctions or ArbCom restrictions. It doesn't become a matter for the tools until there have been significant efforts at dispute resolution and JohnDoe and/or JaneRoe have refused to play a constructive role.

• 18. Why do you wish to be an administrator?

• A:

Optional question from Winger84

19. Do you believe that it is possible for a user that has been blocked for reasons other than 3RR - making an allowance for the fact that it is possible for two or more editors to experience moments of extreme stubbornness, believing that their edit(s) is/are correct - to ever be completely trusted again? Or, do you believe in the line of thinking, "Once blocked, always watched?" If you believe that it is possible for complete trust to be regained, what is a "reasonable threshold" of time - whether it be specifically time or a number of successful edits - for that trust to be regained? What about a user that has previously been banned but perhaps was able to convince administrators to reinstate their account?

General comments

• See Choess's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Choess: Choess (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Choess before commenting.

Discussion

• FYI - Q6 (IMO) = Q10. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
• The practice of asking candidates whether they are open to recall or not, especially if it carries any connotation of support dependent on the answer, ought to be discouraged, and candidates should feel free to refuse to answer if they so wish. We need less situations where passing is dependent on placing ones self in some category or another. Either the candidate is fit for adminship, ir the candidate is unfit. Clearly, my previous practice of asking this was wrong. Lar: t/c 15:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. naerii 20:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Support From what I saw, this editor does good work, both article writing and WikiGnoming, uses edit summaries, I see no negative things or incivility and I think this editor can be trusted with the mob. SoWhy 20:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Support: One of the users who greatly improve Wikipedia's content. After so many excellent contributions I can definitely trust this user with the buttons.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 20:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Support - very happy with everything I've seen. Comes across as a mature and sensible editor who's done a lot of good stuff, and who could make good contributions using the extra tools. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 20:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Looks fine to me. « Diligent Terrier [talk] 20:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
6. Support Agreed, I'm seeing lots of good content work, and the candidate has definitely been here long enough to know what is what. No concerns at this time. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
7. Strongest Support I have known Choess for a few years here and have always been impressed wtih his careful work and calm demeanor. I know from experience that he has discovered several problems (sockpuppets, users citing unreliable sources) and has cleaned up a fair number of messes. He is eminently mop-worthy Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
8. Support - I'm convinced answered questions well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by My Account (talk • contribs)
9. Support. Good user, and good future admin. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
10. Absolutely. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
11. Support--LAAFan 20:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
12. Support Another good candidate, will be a great future admin. LittleMountain5 ^review! 21:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
13. Support, very belatedly, as nominator. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
14. Support, as co-nominator. Craigy (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
15. Support, no concerns here. Will make a fine admin. nancy ^talk 21:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
16. Sure. Looks good. Happy to support. Keeper ǀ 76 22:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
17. Unconditional support after reviewing about 3000 contributions, all is well :) —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 22:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

    SupportMove to oppose. If Strong support is 10/10, normal support is 9/10, and weak support is 8/10, I would be at 8.5/10. I'm a little concerned about the answer to question four. I like how you explained your reasoning; I just disagree with it. "I would advise the candidate to consider offering a {{2nd chance}} template to IP/users who claim they want to contribute constructively and unblock if they respond well to it. Vandals are a dime a dozen and re-blocks are cheap...constructive contributors are golden." NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

18. Support - I paused for a second at the answer to question 1. I always have reservations when a candidate suggests using the buttons on articles they've worked on, however, I believe this is a net positive. More than meets my criteria Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
19. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
20. Very strong support per nom and outstanding article contributions. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
21. Writes articles (zomg). —Giggy 00:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
22. Support A very insightful editor and has always been pleasant to work with. Dincher (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
23. Yes Good candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
24. Support Only thing that worries me is the Talk page edits; really spread out (all but one of your highest editted talk pages are single digits), and Q3. Makes me think you haven't had a real brush with significant conflict here, which is something you'll face as an admin fairly regularly. But that's just a paranoid hunch, so not enough for an Oppose (would do a "weak" support, but that's not my style) :-) You = Trustworthy --KojiDude ^(C) 02:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
25. Support. Since Balloonman seemed to be wondering about the amount of Choess' participation in non-mainspace areas and the extent of his policy knowledge, I spent the time to look at a couple of things: an SSP report filed by Choess, and his comments in an AfD regarding a confusing and hard-to-verify historical figure. I noticed that Choess seemed patient, thorough, and familiar with the related policies. The William Pole AfD was not the only one where another voter mentioned 'Per Choess' in their vote; take a look at this one as well, where you'll notice Choess making a well-researched comment, mentioning three new references and drawing the appropriate conclusion from each. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
26. Support Obviously trustworthy, except for the feminine sounding pseudonym ;) Steven Walling (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
27. Looks good Lajolla2009 (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
28. Support, no concerns here.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
29. Support No concerns here. Would strongly advise tapping other admins to help resolve conflict until more comfortable with it, though. GlassCobra 14:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
30. Support - per Giggy. Best of luck, --Cameron* 15:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
31. Support. Choess is an outstanding and very promising candidate, and I see nothing in the neutral and oppose sections which cause me to doubt that. — Athaenara ✉ 16:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
32. Support I see no reason to oppose. Solid contributions all around. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
33. Support as a good article contributor. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
34. Support Good contribs!! America69 (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
35. Support, has dabbled in all the right areas, good answers to the questions too. Seems always willing to learn and improve. :) Lradrama 17:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
36. Support Sceptre ^(talk) 17:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
37. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
38. Support. Plus, I really like long-term editors. Just goes to show how much patience they have. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 19:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
39. Support Given his long term here, I believe that he is trustable with the mop.  Marlith (Talk)  19:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
40. Support - I trust him with the tools. Should be a net positive to Wikipedia. -FrankTobia (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
41. Support Good user. Spencer^T♦C 21:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
42. Support - yes, I think so. Deb (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
43. A favor - Buenas contribuciones, confío en el. (Nice contribs, I trust in him). macy (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
44. Support Good candidate and best of all that are running. Spevw (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
45. Support. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
46. Supportsupporter arguments more convincing than opposer arguments. If anyone thinks CDB's should be allowed, I would suggest gaining consensus for changing WP:BLOCK. I certainly don't want to grant the block button to anyone who does not understand and is not willing to follow policy. I saw nothing to suggest the user is untrustworthy, and I still don't believe adminship should be made into a bigger deal than it really is. Dlohcierekim 04:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
47. Support if user promises to get drunk and cooldown block as often as possible. I absolutely love that! Haha<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 08:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
48. Support - Nobody can please everybody. If a candidate has worked more in area A than area B, some people will hold it against him/her and vote oppose. If it's more B than A, the same thing happens, only with different people voting oppose. I prefer to look at a candidate's attitude, see if they're trustworthy, thorough, serious. Choess certainly is, so he gets my vote.    SIS  11:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
49. Support - Love the answer to Q4. This candidate clearly has common sense. John Sloan (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
50. Supporting this candidate, as I've looked into the opposes/neutrals below, compared their concerns to my normal rationale, and still find no reason not to support. Even subtracting all of the potentially automated edits from Choess's contributions, I still find an editor who's here for the good of the project, seems to have a high clue factor, and would do no harm with the tools. ^S._D.Jameson 20:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
51. Support This looks like a dedicated Wikipedian, who has been round for a decent amount of time, with a large amount of activity in lots of areas, especially with articles. In short, I think he'll be a good addition. how do you turn this on 00:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
52. Support I find no reason to oppose. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
53. --Taubblindheit (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
54. Support per rational and well thought out answers to questions. At this point, if there was problematic behavior or judgment in his editing history folks in the oppose section would have pointed it out. It doesn't appear that they have (although the philosophical differences are valid as well, of course). Avruch ^T 17:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
55. Support per my general experience with Choess and the answer to Q11. The oppose voices seem to have overlooked that what is advocated here is semi-protection, which merely compels the warriors to register and become subject to our constraints. (Let me take this opportunity to remind Choess that he should not semi-protect this article, but should still put it up to other admins.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
56. The defaulot answer. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 21:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
57. Support Of course. Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 04:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
58. Support Choess has more than 20,000 mainspace edits. He has worked hard for this encyclopedia. Many editors have become admins without many mainspace edits. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Editors who work hard, contribute to articles, and stay away from silly discussions should be respected. I really appreciate your work and please continue to work on articles after you become an admin. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
59. Support Despite Q11, Choess is a good candidate.--chaser (away) - talk 06:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
60. Support. An excellent candidate. The answer to the "cool down block" trick question is the best one I've seen. Axl (talk) 07:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
61. Weak support Most admins end up in controversial areas without trying, but I think Choess can be trusted. MBisanz ^talk 09:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
62. Support Moved from Neutral. See below. --Dweller (talk) 11:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
63. Support Switched from neutral after answer to Q7. Fine candidate, should use the tools well. --MattWT 13:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
64. user:Everyme 15:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
65. Support. Candidate has good communication skills. Nihil obstat. Aramgar (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
66. Fine candidate. Acalamari 23:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
67. (ec)Support - Candidate has the experience to do the right thing or at least not do the wrong thing. Lack of project space work would be concerning in a newer editor but is overcome by experience. Contrary to some of the opposes - conflict resolution does not require admin tools and admin tools do not help very much with conflict resolution, the two are not closely connected, we aren't police officers, we have no authority, just ability.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
68. Strongest support. Calm, courteous and all round excellent contributor. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
69. Weak support. I share some of the concerns of the opposers, and the low level of Wikipedia namespace edits would normally cause me to oppose, but the answers to questions have swung things slightly in favour. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
70. Strong Support Get the impression Choess will be the kind of admin who'll help good contributors more than tendentious über nuts. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
71. Strong Support - no concerns at all, voluminous number of edits, fairly safe bet that he'll not abuse the tools, and meets my standards. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
72. Support - Took me a while to decide but after a while I have decided to support. You appear to be a good solid contributor, who I think would do well as an admin and not abuse the tools. I would not have taken quite the approach you did to the answer to question 11, but you gave it good justification and is satisfactory to me. Answer to question 6 and what the nominators do does not concern me. Getting lots of FAs/GAs and doing a lot of dispute resolution/project space work is a bonus, but is not required in my opinion for adminship, and I am an admin and fail at least one of these myself! Good luck. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
73. Support. I have had no problems with this editor; he's done some good work on Schunemunk Mountain and some other hiking-related articles. Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
74. Support: plenty of experience, seems good-natured, good answers to questions, and no reason to believe he would abuse the tools. I particularly approve of his reasonable approach to page protection, which seems to have earned him some opposition below. Terraxos (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
75. Support, a good contributor; I have no reason to suspect that he will not perform well as an admin. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 22:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
76. Support -- a solid contibutor. I've run across his work from time to time, and I have no reason to believe he would not benefit the encyclopedia by becoming an admin. --Coemgenus 12:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
77. Support - good contibutor. No reasons to believe any possible misuse of admin buttons.-- Tinu Cherian - 14:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. While Choess is an excellent editor, who makes a ton of menial edits (possibly via tools?) I had a real problem finding any proof of consensus building and/or policy understanding. Of his over 23,000 edits, over 20,000 are in the mainspace and would be deemed minor (but beneficial) edits. While 3000 non-mainspace edits is still an impressive total so I tried to dig into them. During the last 5 month period, he has made 3 edits to Wikipedia Talk. One of those edits he started the discussion, but never participated or followed up on the discussion. Another edit he made a drive by comment, but never appears to have revisited the discussion. His third edit, the same thing. All three of those discussions encountered extensive discussion after his contribution, but he didn't appear to be involved in them. I got the definite sense that he is the type to make drive by contributions. So I looked at the other places where he might be involved with. During the same 5 months, he's made 100 edits to the talk space. While there is minimal evidence of working on GA reviews, most are cosmetic edits such as redirects, name changes, or adding appropriate project tags. I don't think there are but one or two where he made more than 5 edits! In fact, in his 3.5 years of editing there is only one article where he has contributed to the talk page more than 10 times. Similarly, in the past 5 months, he's only made about 100 edits to User Talk pages. While there are a few people he communicates with on a semi-regular basis, his user talk contributions are sporatic and do not show consensus building nor do they demand policy knowledge. So how about his participation ot the wikipedia space? Once again, during the past 5 months, he's only made about 50 edits to the wikipedia space. The contributions to these spaces indicate drive by participation in a number of areas as compared to establishing oneself and obtaining a solid understanding of any one area. Thus, while he is a solid editor, I don't see the policy building or a demonstration of communicative skills I'd like to see from admins candidates. I'm also worried about the apparent drive by nature of his communication style. On a side note, I would suggest responding to discussions on the page where they begin, it really makes researching discussions a lot easier.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 00:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

   While I respect your right to Oppose, may I point you to Choess' long term work trying to help a user and then cleaning up his mess at User:Burkem/review list and (since you are an admin and can see deleted talk pages) his interactions with User:Burkem at User talk:Burkem. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

   The problem with both of those is that they are from 2006. I don't hold actions of people from 2 years ago against them, thus I would be hypocritical to count 2 year old behavior actions in their favor. I judge candidates based upon their past year, with the most recent 4-6 months of behavior being the most important. Again, he is a solid editor, I just don't see enough recent activity to give me a comfortable feeling about his current temperament.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 00:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

   Fair enough, just wanted to let you know something you were likely not aware of. For the record, I find Choess to be the same now as he was then, just busier in real life. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

   I struggled with this one... I actually saw it shortly after the RfA was transcluded and spent a little over 1.5 hours reviewing his contributions trying to decide if I could support or oppose I kept looking for something recent to convince me to support.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 01:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

   Fair cop, I think. About 1.5 years ago, various things changing in RL meant that my Wikipedia access tends to be more sporadic, and I also have somewhat less intellectual energy to spend on it. Adding succession boxes and categories and other gnoming stuff is more or less brain candy for me, but article writing, article reviews, and consensus building all burn a lot of energy, and I'm just not spending as much as I was earlier in my Wikipedian career. If nothing else, this process will at least be a useful stimulus to my editing conscience. Choess (talk) 02:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

2. I have to agree with Balloonman on this one, consensus building, controversial article mediation, discussion. Your user page says you have only got 1 article to GA, I need to see stronger article building than that. Also have concerns about certain editing style/actions of certain nominators. — Realist² 01:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

   The fact that I'm a bastard and everyone hates me should in no way reflect on Choess, who barely knows me. Just sayin'. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

   Realist, Kafziel's contributions have zero impact on whether Choess would be a good admin. Not a fan of this 1GA standard either, which seems like a re-incarnation of 1FA.--chaser (away) - talk 17:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

   I never specified who I was talking about as it's not a major reason for my oppose anyway. Also, co noms don't work one way, they aren't just there to help a nomination succeed. They can work for or against the candidate, and rightfully so. — Realist² 17:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose per answer to #6. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

   And you wonder why people have trouble trusting your motives? First you oppose others because they puts these so-called "official policies" above judgment of what's best in a given situation, now we finally have a person who isn't tied to the policy and indicates that he will use his own judgement and will IAR when necessary. But he still get's an oppose... so what is the appropriate answer?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

   From what I gather after reading the answer to the question, the user did not give much information beyond "no, it's against policy". Also, Kurt believes CDBs are perfectly acceptable. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

   Balloonman, I would say the reasoning does apply, because the candidate's only real reason for adherence to the idea of no CDB is because of "policy, per WP:BLOCK." —  scetoaux (T|C) 21:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

4. Weak Oppose This user has 2 Wikipedia namespace edits in the past 500. 16 user talk edits in last 500. Also per policy-clingy answer to 6 and answer to Xeno's question. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Weak struck after looking closer and some recent answers. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 19:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose - Choess's answer to question 11 scares me a bit and to be honest almost goes against policy. "I'd say that once a suitable, NPOV version has been worked out on the talk page, semi-protection justifies the potential loss of incremental improvements by eliminating the perpetual oscillation from one POV to another." gives me the impression that once a version comes about that he agrees with he will protect that version to insure that it stays that way, is that not a POV protection itself and is Wikipedia not built on the basis that anyone should be able to edit and contribute, and that includes users that feel that the protected version is not the correct one. Also "I don't think there's any need to discuss protection for the article; it's just a high-profile article that's bound to get a certain amount of drive-by vandalism." goes completely against policy IMO, we do not protect articles unless it is warranted, and simply saying "I think this article will be a target for vandalism" is not justification in and of itself for protection. Tiptoety ^talk 03:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

   Gee, that sounds an awful lot like something else I've heard somewhere before. —  scetoaux (T|C) 05:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

   Regarding the second part: I read his answer as saying there would be no need for protection in such a case. "I don't think there's any need to discuss protection for the article..." meaning he's using it as an example of an article that he wouldn't protect. Enigma ^message 06:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

   Yep, it appears that's what he was getting at after reading his second response to my question. Tiptoety ^talk 06:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

6. Oppose due to answer to question 11. This demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the consensus process, and the use of protection. Wikipedia articles find a NPOV by having competing POVs present in the creation process. All of these POVs, centrist, for, against, combine and argue until they reach the version where they are all the least upset with it. It is a dampened oscillation that gets closer and closer to NPOV. Obviously there are some exceptions, but as Ed Poor so correctly explained, don't get confused between an Objective point of view and a Neutral point of view. It is not for Choess to judge what is an NPOV and protect the page. Prodego ^talk 03:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose Answer to Q11 and general non-focus on Wikipedia areas indicates a general lack of understanding of policy, especially in a critical area (issuing protection). NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 05:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

   Wow. I just noticed this move from support to oppose. I would think that a major concern would be necessary for such a move, yet I see no such concern raised. I really think you should expand a lot on your reasoning here, NW. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 12:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

   That's a fair statement to make Dean. It seemed that Choess was a good candidate at first, but her answer to question eleven really shocked me. Either I misunderstood her answer (which is why I added in Q14), or she has a massive misunderstand of the protection policy on Wikipedia. In addition, I looked at Balloonman's oppose and found that I agreed with much of it. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

   As far as I'm aware, Choess is a he... Craigy (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

8. Oppose I was going to post my typical questions (the one concerning consensus, in particular), but decided there wasn't a need due to the response to question 1. Opposing due to no seeming need for the tools. - jc37 06:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

   No one really needs the tools. I feel that this is a bit of a weak reason to oppose. ^S._D.Jameson 11:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

   Well, while you are, of course, welcome to that opinion, opposing due to lack of need is a valid reason to oppose. It's one of the reasons that question #1 exists in the first place. To indicate need. I may trust someone with an axe, but that doesn't mean that we should necessarily give that person an axe to carry around if they have no need to ever utilise it. ("But a tree may fall in front of me someday...") In looking over this page (and perhaps I missed it), I'm honestly not even seeing anywhere that it's stated why the user wants the tools. Are they intending to help out somewhere? Or just as something to have "just in case they might want them at some point in the future"? (to extend the metaphor above: a fallen tree appears) If the latter, then they can be requested then. For me, step one in commenting at RfA is: a.) Do they express in specifics how they would have a direct and immediate use for the tools? b.) Would I trust this user based on my criteria? I haven't even gotten to determining b, since they don't seem to meet a. (This doesn't express the research I do regarding an editor's edits/interactions in relation to b, obviously.) But anyway, this is likely moot, as this will likely pass. - jc37 09:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

   Fair enough, though I disagree, and quite strongly. He outlines why he wants the tools in Q1, he just says that he will be "circumspect." Would that more admins would take that pledge. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 12:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

   I was just reading Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_adminship_discussions#Doesn.27t_need_the_tools which seems to be relevant. What am I missing? Richard Pinch (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

   I believe that that's talking more about opposing due to lack of intent in a particular area. (Such as saying: "The candidate doesn't intend on helping with images".)

   Though an admin indeed need not ever use the tools (as noted there), providing them to someone would seem to suggest that they intend to use them "somehow". Else why bother? And question #1 exists for the long standing intent for the candidate to explain intended usage, and provide the opportunity for the candidate to show that they have already been active in such places. If the section you indicated suggests something different, then perhaps that section needs re-writing. Policies and guidelines (generally, in most cases) are intended to illustrate common practice. Opposing due to lack of showing how the user intends to use the tools has been fairly common, and an accepted rationale. All that said, I welcome discussion regarding a contrary view. (Though perhaps moving this part of the thread to the talk page if it continues.) - jc37 21:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

   • You're not missing anything. It's not a good argument, which was my point to begin with, but Jc37 wants to use it, so it's up to the closing 'crat to weigh the reasoning for what it's worth. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 21:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose per misunderstanding of the protection policy demonstrated in question 11. Protection should only be used when the article faces recent activity: vandalism, edit warring between multiple parties, etc. Protection in the face of a slow edit war would be inappropriate and possibly ineffective. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Withdrawing, as I'm not entirely sure how accurate my oppose is. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

   I believe that the candidate was saying that he wouldn't protect in the case that he mentioned in question 11. GlassCobra 12:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

   Is that so? I was going by this: "The latest edit war relates to the addition of an infobox to the article; it's an improvement (well, if you like infoboxes), but one side will use it to push an extreme POV; then the other side comes in, rolls it back, and pushes it a little too far to the other POV. The article is otherwise fairly mature and stable. There are other, productive contributions from at least one of the IPs. In a case like that, I'd say that once a suitable, NPOV version has been worked out on the talk page, semi-protection justifies the potential loss of incremental improvements by eliminating the perpetual oscillation from one POV to another". I could be wrong in my interpretation though. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral for now — Your contributions seem good, haven't had a chance to thoroughly look through them though so I'll remain neutral for now until I review them. Switched to support —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 20:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Neutral Per Balloonman. Seeing as the user's past 50 Wikipedia space edits date all the way back to February, I'm a bit concerned about a lack of understanding of policy and knowledge of consensus building. You seem like a good editor, otherwise –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral - I do agree with Balloonman on some points, about how while your mainspace gnome work is exceptional, not enough is done in other places. I also agree with Juliancolton's point about projectspace edits. However, it's not enough to oppose over. Soxπed93^(blag) 02:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral - Good(ish) contributions, bad answer to Q6.  Asenine  08:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

   A6 follows policy. He even mentions IAR cases. What more do you want? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 17:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

   A bit of common sense is what I want. Most blocks on Wikipedia are in fact cool down blocks just given a different name.  Asenine  23:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral I agree with Balloonman and Realist2 on some points, but I will not oppose this RFA because Choess has made more than 20,000 mainspace edits. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

   Is that a reason to neutral?  Asenine  09:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

   Certainly. Balloonman and Realist have brought up points sufficient to convince Masterpiece2000 to not support, while the user's large amount of mainspace work prevents an oppose. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

   Changed to support. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

4. Neutral, basically per Baloonman. Outstanding mainspace contribution work by the candidate (and this really counts for a lot), but too little participation in areas such as consensus building, dispute resulution, Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk pages, AfDs, and the like. An admin needs to be able to deal with various conflicts and problems, to interpret policy and consensus correctly and I'd like to have some kind of explicit basis for judging how well the candidate might do there. Nsk92 (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Awaiting more Q&A. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral leaning towards support - awaiting answer to Q7. --MattWT 22:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral leaning to Support. Would like to support, but have nagging doubts over user's interaction with others. Admins aren't only expected to tidy up messes, but we should be prepared to discuss them, help users understand where they're going wrong, explain why we deleted the wrong version etc. I appreciate the huge amount of work you put in here, but think that if you're granted the tools, you will need to be prepared to expend a little bit of extra time explaining their use sometimes and I worry that you are disinclined to do so. This is a niggle, but for me it's quite a big niggle and it prevents me from supporting, which I regret. --Dweller (talk) 11:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Move to support. --Dweller (talk) 11:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

   For what it's worth, this discussion was what prompted me to consider nominating in the first place. We'd never worked together before and I thought he showed an exceptional willingness to do the necessary real-life leg work, particularly considering it's not a subject he has a lot of personal interest in. If he's willing to spend his free time sitting at his computer, poring over maps and old books to clarify something that barely interests him, it seems all the more likely that he'd be willing to patiently discuss easily-referenced matters like admin actions. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

   Here's another place where he helped with some cogent comments in late June and allowed a solution to be reached where an edit war threatened: Talk:Bellevue State Park (Delaware) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

   Thanks to you both. The diffs you present are somewhat persuasive, yet One swallow doesn't make a summer. The candidate is clearly capable of intelligent, helpful dialogue, but is he inclined to do so generally, or just on a rare occasion? I'll find some time to dig further into his contribs later, but I am persuadable on this and would welcome extra diffs. I think it's relevant and useful for them to be posted here, for any other !voters who might be looking for reassurance on this point. --Dweller (talk) 09:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

   Since you are an admin and can read deleted pages, you might like what he wrote on Feb. 1, 2007 to a user who kept insisting on adding his website to the Newton Falls, Ohio website as an external link - see User talk:NewtonFallsLeader. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

   That's a great example of not biting and patiently explaining to a really quite aggressive newbie. On top of other bits and bobs I've seen for myself in the contribs, that's enough for me. Thanks all. --Dweller (talk) 11:31, 19 August 2008 (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.