Ched Davis

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (81/5/3); Scheduled to end 23:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Ched Davis (talk · contribs) – Fellow editors I think it's time that Ched got the extra tool set. A civil, helpful editor whose input across numerous project space areas has been outstanding. With around 10,000 edits (if you like to count em! experience is, cough, more than I thought). So, some bullets -

Main Space

• Over a third of Ched's edits - in particular to NASCAR related articles and significant Talk contributions indicating the desire to collaborate.
• Significant and substantial gnoming work, mainly by hand indicating little reliance on automated tools.

Project Work

• Accurate CSD tags, AIV work and helpful thoughtful input at WP:ANI
• CSD and WP:XFD contributions demonstrating understanding of policy and guideline
• Drama free, I'm impressed with Ched as a voice of reason
• Excellent helpdesk contributions showing understanding and commitment.

Learning

• Some recent (and very minor) errors regarding categorising in the BLP drive where met with understanding by Ched. He's clearly capable of backing off and learning from minor errors - and I doubt major errors are likely.

House Keeping

• Clean Block Log
• Rollbacker
• Sensible user page
• Great signature :)

All, this seems to me a classic Net Positive. A calm, level headed editor that would do well with the tools and treat them cautiously. As WP:FORMER grows larger and the backlogs remain let's help us all out by giving Ched the tools. Pedro :  Chat  23:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I am honored and humbled by this, and I accept the nomination.

note: Rather than interrupt this procedure, I will make liberal use of the talk page. Feel free to transclude at will. — Ched :  ?  03:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Yep, first question, and I never did figure out a good answer for it. I'd imagine that after I put some duct tape over the delete button, I'd have to see what I was good at. So now I'll give it a shot at the "do intend" part. Basically that will depend on the needs of the community, and with the realization that I won't be doing anything at all until I get out of Admin. School. (I think User:Example is about due for a block). I'm sure there are some pages in my own area I can experiment with as far as the protect button. I'll also likely pester the daylights out of a few patient admins with questions for a month or three as well. The bottom line is I'll find and bookmark the backlog listings. If I run across a vandal while doing some RC patrol, I'll block them when I'm sure it's the right thing to do, or dump to WP:AIV if I'm in doubt. If I see extensive IP vandalism at a page, I'll semi-protect. If I stumble across an edit war, I'll full-protect, (with the full understanding that it's always the wrong version. If Jd needs some time to regenerate, I'll keep an eye on AIV, and I'd certainly look into WP:RFPP to see if I was suited to that. Since I check in at the help desk a lot, when the occasion arises, I'll suggest and help at WP:REFUND (after using my plagairism checker), and making sure it's not the forbidden attack, or a hoax kind of thing - so if possible, I'll help folks userfy lost work. During some of my early work of merging items to Timeline of computer viruses and worms I found that I enjoyed that type of work, so I'd likely see if I could help out at WP:REPAIR. (* deep breath *) Now the biggie. Those looking through my recent contribs will see a lot of work in the BLP area. Flagged revs. will likely be upon us before early August, and when the new "Reviewer" function goes live, I'd like to be there to help. I'm not sure what all it will entail yet, but since the BLP area is so critical to our integrity as a website, I intend to do my best to be a part of it.

For the most part, I'd hope my admin. stuff wouldn't take up much more than 10-15% of my time, because I do enjoy building content too. If there's something the community would like me to do, just ask, and I'll look at it. If I feel comfortable with it, I'll try. Unfortunately i don't have a crystal ball, so I am not comfortable giving a definitive reply, but those are the things I'd most likely be doing after spending time learning the tools of the trade. Kick, block, ban, iggy, and such are a bit different than the old chat rooms, forums, and boards I worked in in the past, and I've never been exposed to wiki tools elsewhere, so a learning period would be required.

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

A: I suppose only the community can answer that one, but I'll list some of the work I've enjoyed. Starting out, I enjoyed WP:NPP, as it gave me a chance to work with stubs, and make improvements. It felt good to work on the Paul A. Hodgson bio, I got to improve the Ethan Phillips BLP, when I asked an experienced editor about my work on Twilight (1998 film) the feedback was encouraging. I think I'm headed in the right direction with my NASCAR edits, and I believe my cleanup of the Chip Reid BLP was an improvement. When User:Royalbroil offered to help me get Heidelberg Raceway improved enough to move out into article space I felt grateful, and a little bit useful. I put a lot of work into the Rex White article, and when it and the Heidelberg Raceway hit the main page on the same day with DYK entries, it was a great feeling. I enjoyed encouraging, researching, and supporting User:TechOutsider in getting Norton Internet Security up to GA status. Granted, the bulk of the credit belongs to him, but talk page archives would likely show my efforts to be a tad more than the dozen or so edits I made. Working with RoyalBroil to get Tim Richmond up to GA was a tremendous learning experience, and I'm pleased with the results of the 1952 in NASCAR article so far. I thoroughly enjoyed the collaboration and spirit of working to get the Susan Boyle article off the ground in the early days, and when another editor asked for my review of Ħaġar Qim I was flattered. (even though I knew absolutely nothing about it, I gave it my best shot). As Pedro mentioned, I enjoy helping at the Help desk, as well as the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing area. At the present time I'm spending a lot of time working on BLP unCat, and I believe that to be a worthy effort. I'm also working on a FLC, but that one is still under wraps. On a more reserved note, after advice, help, and encouragement to be WP:BOLD, we rolled out this discussion which has led to the Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines proposal. I know it will never be part of article space, but I believe as the community matures, it will certainly have a place in our culture. In general, I believe I've adapted well to a global community of many cultures, backgrounds and beliefs; and I believe I've learned to work with them well. The bottom line is that I hope my best contributions will be the ones I make tomorrow. (ewwww .. that just sounds soooo .... political).

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: Stress? naa... Stress is when my daughter calls 10 minutes before I leave for an extended road-trip with limited Internet access, and is almost in tears saying "Our company had our website stolen. Can you help?" Confrontations? Sure, lot's of them by wiki-standards. I have no problem engaging other editors in an effort to improve the wiki, or... to assuage either their concerns or my own. I'll work to provide satisfactory answers to any questions, attempt to find a resolution or middle-ground, and then attempt to de-escalate the pseudo-drama as quickly as possible. If it is either a new user, or a sensitive user, I'll try to follow up to offer any apologies I believe should be issued, and try to encourage their continued efforts here by finding positive items to mention, and applaud those efforts. I guess my communication 2.0 essay kind of describes my perceptions of communication through text, so I'll attempt to clarify things when possible. Also, while I don't mind personally if emotions limit an editors vocabulary, I am very aware of AGF, CIV, and NPA etiquette when it comes to other users, and would quickly intervene if I believe that someone is being offended. I know that WP isn't kindergarden, and I'm not going to take part in any "Civility Police crusade", but I'll also expect others to adhere by our core civility guidelines as long as they are in place. Also, if it appears that I am the source of any discomfort, then I'll just apologize for the inconvenience, and walk away. There's no page or article in particular that I feel I have to be on to be productive towards the project. If you'd want me to dig through my history and provide some examples, I'd be happy to oblige. So, "how will I deal with it in the future?" .. Accentuate the positive, minimize the negative, and try to move on to building, and protecting the domain of en.wikipedia.org

Comment/questions arising: Your Communication 2.0 essay is more like Internets Writings 101. You've not given any examples of disagreement resolution, conflict management, nor any collegiate achievement illustrating problem-solving within the policies. So I must presume you've never had any communication with another user where you've collaborated despite differences. Precisely how would you gauge the necessity to quickly intervene if you believe(d) that someone is being offended.? Neither essays nor policies cover every eventuality so how does such a judgment call based upon a subjective interpretation (and where you state your personal perceptions differ from the policies you cite) square with: I know that "WP isn't kindergarten, and I'm not going to take part in any "civility Police crusade" but I'll also expect others to adhere by our civility guidelines as long as they're in place"  ? What do you think of a rationale whereby the condition of 'being offended' is one that it is exclusively the offendee's call? How would your intervention considerations apply to talk space? And laudable though the desire to avoid drama is, do you really think that to just apologize for the inconvenience, and walk away from any discomfort you may cause is always going to be sufficient? Is that what you'd be recommending in your quick interventions? Plutonium27 (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Jennavecia

4a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

A:I think the BLP situation balances on the brink of embarrassment every day. I believe there is definitely a potential problem, and there have obviously been major problems in the past. (Kennedy and Byrd of the 2008 election results for example). I don't believe it's possible to put a quantitative reply to the "how significant" part of the question. I've been a reader of Wikipedia since the early days, but when the Chris Benoit tragedy struck 2 years ago, I noticed how quickly that Wikipedia information can change, and how easily mistakes can be made. That's when I started reading the talk pages, and wondering about the future of Wikipedia. I think we are struggling to keep up in this area, and I believe we've made tremendous strides, but we are far from being on top of this situation. I believe that the BLP situation may be the single most important issue we deal with; as it affects the lives and reputations of very real people.

4b. For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?

A:I don't believe that this question is for me to answer, but rather a community decision that should be addressed. (hint: RfC) Personally, I would say "delete" for the simple fact that I'd rather have no information than faulty, or damaging information when it comes to peoples lives.

4c. Imagining you're an admin, you go to close a BLP AFD on a marginally notable individual. Reading through the comments, you see that the subject of the article (identity verified through OTRS) has voiced concerns about false claims that have been made in the article, and wants it to be deleted. How much consideration, if any, do you give to their argument?

A:Well, it's not likely that I'll be closing any AfDs any time soon, but I suppose if all the admins left a sign on the door that said "Go see Ched" .. then I'd have to say ... "marginally notable" you say? ... The bulk of consideration would go to the individual in question. Delete. Better to have no information than faulty or defamatory information that wasn't accurate.

Additional questions from NuclearWarfare

5a. Can you please reveal the names of any account you have used on Wikimedia Foundation projects?

A.

User:Ched Davis

User:Ched (public) - an account I set up for when I'm not behind the security that I've set up on my network at home. It is properly tagged as an alt. account.

5b. If the answer to 5a did not include every account you have used, why are you unwilling to reveal those accounts? Would you be willing to reveal that information to the Arbitration Committee, the Functionaries, or the Bureaucrats? (Just answer N/A if this question does not apply to you)

A. I also have a couple wiki accounts at other wiki style websites: Memory Alpha (a Star Trek wiki) and maybe a Stargate wiki. I believe they are all "Ched Davis". If it's important, I'll try to find the exact info, but I haven't really done much there since I got so involved in en-Wikipedia

5c. Follow-up question to 5b: Did you edit on the Star Trek/Stargate wikis before you got involved with Wikimedia?

A.I believe they were around the same time. If I recall correctly, I signed up for Wikipedia first, one of my early efforts was a Stargate article (which was a redirect at the time, and I returned to a redirect when it was explained that there were not enough real world resources to make it a viable stand-alone article). I believe it was then that I considered going over to the Star Trek site. However, User:Huntster stopped by my talk page, offered words of encouragement, advice, and explained why it wouldn't work as a stand-alone article. It was enough to keep me interested here, and even though my early days struggled with WP:NOT, I was one of the fortunate ones who met supportive and helpful editors who steered me in positive directions. I'll try to find my old Trek login, but I likely don't have the stargate one anymore.

That is more than enough; thank you. NW (Talk) 02:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Rootology

6. Do you have any strongly held beliefs or affiliations, "In real life", and would you be willing to disclose those here? Would you be willing or able to permanently recuse from using your admin tools on those areas?

A: Yes, I do have some very strong beliefs in real life, but I don't believe that Wikipedia is the place to discuss those items. My beliefs in religious areas, and political venues are my own personal beliefs, and I am willing to discuss those things with others - but only in a personal conversation. (email). You'll likely notice that I have little to zero edits in the areas that I hold dearest. I believe in the "vested interest" idea. This would not however prevent me from taking action in any area I felt was becoming detrimental to Wikipedia in general. While I would not impose my views or beliefs on another person, if the protection of a page, or the blocking of an editor who was engaged in personal attacks would benefit the community at large - then I would not hesitate to take action.

7. Are you engaged currently, or were previously, in any activities off-wiki which (under your "real name", or your online "handle") which, if made public, could potentially bring Wikipedia into disrepute?

A:I don't bring disrepute to the things I love. I admit to having an account at Citizendium, but I don't consider that as bring disrepute or disgrace to this site. It's easy to research, I use my real name in all areas these days. In the 90's I went by various incarnations of "lone-wolf" - this was long before Wikipedia existed. Personally, I don't think off-wiki activities have much to do with what goes on here. Different venues, different rules, different people. Apples and oranges my friend. But no, I've never said a bad word about the 'pedia off site.

8. What are your views on Flagged Revisions, keeping in mind that the beta trials for WP:BLP subjects after the numerous polls and surveys this year are coming to English Wikipedia in mid/late 2009?

A: Personally I liked that idea about the two different tabs one. One for current and one for approved. To be honest, if someone searched long enough, and hard enough, they would find a vote in an early pole (or is that poll) with my oppose sig. Once I saw the support that Jimbo threw behind the idea, I figured it was a done deal - I didn't follow much more. Over time, my perspectives have changed, and I think this is something that needs to get done - but let's face it - by Wikimania, it will;; be done.

9. Do you feel that admins should be subject to all policies, and the repercussions for possibly violating them, as if they were any other non-admin user?

A:Admins aren't anything special (sorry). If anything, they should know the rules better than the others, and should be expected to act as guiding examples for the community. Now that said, I also realize that they put up with a lot more garbage than some other editors may, and the admins that toil in the pits of vandalism, SPI, and AN boards are under extreme pressures at times. I don't have a problem with forgiveness under undue pressure. I don't think admins are any less equal, but I also don't think they should be any more equal. Bottom line: What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. Just remember where each of them lives.

Optional question from decltype

10. Your nomination mentions your CSD work a couple of times, yet according to yourself "I'd doubt that I had over a dozen CSD's in my 9000+ edits". Are you being slightly misrepresented here? :)

A To be honest, I consider my CSD work to be my weakest area in Wikipedia. I am making efforts to understand the area, but my main focus has been, and will continue to be in the building and improvement area. I've had perhaps a half dozen "tags" of CSD out of my 10,000 edits, and have learned from each that this is an important area, but not likely one that I will focus on in the near future. I believe the "representation" merely underlines the fact that I learn quickly, don't make the same mistakes twice, and have the ability to excel in the areas that I put effort into. But yes, this is not an area I am strongest in, but make efforts to improve in.

Optional question from Tedder

11. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?

A: Taken as a collective group (XfD), then I would say no. I think it wise to "relist" when in doubt, but if there is a lack of interest by the community, I think it reflects a lack of interest in the article. I think that once we try to ascribe a "number" to such processes, we limit the flexibility that makes us function-able. — Ched :  ?  06:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

12. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groomtech (talk • contribs) 06:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: Hi Groomtech, I've been looking forward to this question in RfA. For those who don't know, Groomtech and I have touched on this before, but here is my reply. I first noticed this question in RfA shortly after my changes to my user page, and wondered if my page had sparked this question. My answer: No. I wish that I could reply with a "yes" but the facts must bear witness here. The idea that Wikipedians have rights directly implies that they have the right to a computer, and that they have the right to Internet access. Sadly, this is not the case. One must have the means to acquire a computer, and fulfill the responsibility to pay an ISP. Beyond this, there is the simple fact that Wikipedia (ie wikipedia.org) does not exist in Internet ownership. The wikipedia.org domain exists solely through legal "lease" (see ICANN), so its existence is not guaranteed. Further, the interaction between an end user, and this site is dependent upon the grace of those who own the servers and computer hardware that our information is stored upon... Wikimedia Foundation. Technically they could pull the plug at any time. Now on to the theoretical ... yes, I believe that we all should share the privilege of being treated as equals, accorded due respect, and afforded the dignity that all human beings deserve. My upbringing taught me that all men (and women) are created equal, and that we have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". I also believe in the concept that we should "do unto others as we would have them do unto us". In that vein, I would attempt to uphold the wiki-right to fair treatment to all. None should be above our laws, and none should be below them.

Question from Dekimasu

13. Have you ever been paid to edit or maintain an article on Wikipedia? Is paid editing on Wikipedia an acceptable practice?

A: No. I've seen it argued that if it benefited the 'pedia in the long run, it would be ok, but I just don't buy that. Too much danger of COI. The ends do not justify the means in this case.

Additional optional questions from Coldmachine

14. You have been involved with Wikipedia since November 2008: what are the most important things you feel you've learned during this time?

A: Several things actually: 1.) Not to make assumptions - there's likely to be a thread, conversation, project, or contrib somewhere that I'm not aware of, so it's best to be open to changing my opinion. 2.) I can't undo the past, so it's best to learn from the mistakes, and just move on and try to add positive influence to the site. and 3.) The vast global scale of Wikipedia astounds me everyday. The diversity in cultures, backgrounds, ages, beliefs, and even languages is almost limitless. So I've learned it's best to be cautious in all actions, reactions, and interactions.

Questions from Steve Crossin

15. Administrators, on a day-to-day basis, will likely have to resolve a dispute between one or more editors, in some form. What past experience do you have in dispute resolution? (MedCab, RFCs, real life experience)

A: I haven't done anything at MEDCAB. I've responded to a couple WP:3O items, various RfC listings, but for the most part I will state my views, clarify if necessary, then move on. If I can resolve something, I'll try, but I haven't spent a great deal of time at being a mediator at WP. In real-life? Single parent, Shift supervisor/plant foreman, network administrator are my biggest backgrounds in that area. It may be something I'd be good at in WP, but other than a few personal situations, I've not put much time into that area.

16. Are you eligible for the OAP?

A: LOL ... not quite yet. I've got a few good years left in me to offer, so you won't need to put me out to pasture for a while yet.

17. Will you ever finish editing Janis? :)

A: Ah, but Steve, an article is never truly finished. ;) ... But yes, I've been busy with some BLP stuff and a few other things, but I will get back to working on that within the next couple weeks.

Questions from Tony1

18. What is your view of the notion of AdminReview, a community-driven process—still in draft form—for dealing with prima facie reasonable grievances against the use of or threat to use administrator tools in a way a user believes has breached admin policy?

A: I had noticed the link to this recently and bookmarked the page for future reading, and just now did a quick read through of it. At the newly developed WP:ADREV I stated this, in hopes that something could fill the gap between the AN and AN/I postings, and the WP:RFAR official process. I also glanced through the old proposal at Wikipedia:Administrator Review which is now obsolete. I think the WP:RFC/U process may be daunting for many users, and actually I think it likely serves editor concerns rather than administrative ones better. I think it's something the community wants, and I think that it could assist on the occasions where an administrator has gone off track a bit, and deserves some guidance and advice rather than to be hauled before ArbCom. Allow me to read through this in greater detail, and I'll return to answer questions 19 and 20 in a couple hours - I think they deserve more than a rushed through response.

19. Do you believe the policy on admin behaviour as expressed at WP:ADMIN should be set out in a codified and easy-to-read form on that policy page?

A: As I understand the question I would have to say no. I think that too much instruction creep leads to constrictions that inhibit our ability to grow as a culture. I agree with the concept of "easy-to-read", but I think that setting it down as a "law" is a mistake.

20. What is your view on encouraging a an optional pre-blocking protocol for dealing with established editors who have been uncivil, comprising the issuing by an admin of a Warning to the editor and a request to Apologise to the recipient(s) of the incivility and to Strike through the offending text (the WAS protocol), as an alternative to blocking? More generally, do you encourage a shift towards admins' use of their mediation skills in such cases? Tony (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: As I understand the question, I would have to say that I would be opposed to any type of "protocol" for dealing with established editors. I think that every issue should be dealt with on an individual basis. We have some tremendous talent contributing to Wikipdeia, and I hate the fact that we lose those resources due to technicalities in policy and guidelines. As far as a request or demand for an apology, I see that as a pointless exercise in bureaucracy, those that truly believe that they have done wrong will offer an apology without prompting. As far as mediation skills in an administrators goes - yes - I see that as a tremendous skill asset in both an administrator and an editor.

Thanks for your responses; I intended the proposal for a "protocol" to be optional. Most incivility—and abuse—remains unaddressed on the page? The pre-blocking option would be a chance for cooling off, which is what blocking is supposed to be. On the "codified" admins policy, is it any different in status for being scattered in a disorganised fashion through WP:ADMIN? The intention of codifying is to make it plain for those unskilled in extracting the meaning from large, badly written documents. Tony (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, aside from the consensus that this states that blocks should not be used for "cool down" purposes, I'd have to say that I wouldn't be opposed to a wider discussion on your proposals. I've always tried to adhere to WP:BLOCK, and of the 2,500 or so vandalisms I've reverted, only about 60 of them have I reported to WP:AIV. I'm not sure which documents you consider to be "badly written", but I'd be happy to take a look and respond to anything you'd like me to look at specifically. I think that one key item in the blocking policy is "persistent" - and I think that's a valid point.

Questions from Seddon

21. What is your favourite piece of classical music and why?

A: I am woefully ignorant in that area. While I do enjoy it on occasion, I only own 1 CD which is a mixture of: (Beethoven, Bach and Brahms. Unfortunately I wouldn't be able to tell one from the other while listening to it. (except perhaps Beethovens Fifth).

22. Describe adminship in one word.

A: Patience

General comments

• Links for Ched Davis: Ched Davis (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Ched Davis can be found here.
• I noticed the item of automated edits was raised. This tool may be of some assistance. Most of the Twinkle stuff is vandalism reverts, warnings, and WP:AIV reports. Most of the Friendly edits are welcome messages to new users. Hope that helps. — Ched :  ?  10:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Per my nomination and the right thing to do. Pedro :  Chat  23:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Strong support - I wrote up a long and TLDR support a moment ago, but to be honest, all I need to say is this. Ched rocks, and on weekends (and special occasions) rules. He's considerate, kind, knowledgeable, and possesses the exact sort of attributes that I like to see in any admin candidate.
   You're not allowed to fail now — I stayed up for an hour to save this... and then couldn't stay up any longer! ;) — neuro^(talk) 03:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support; **** yeah! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support. Great noms, solid editor, and I've had at least remote contact with him on various pages. We need more solid Ched types. tedder (talk) 04:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support, although the long winded answers to the questions sort of put me off :P. Ched will make an excellent admin. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 04:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Yes he should be. MBisanz ^talk 04:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns noted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Ideal candidate, no reason at all not to support. rootology (C)(T) 04:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support I've had to deal with Ched's incessant prattling for...oh wait, this is a support. I meant, I've been working with Ched since shortly after he joined the site, and I find him to be one of the best, most consistent, and most competent editors I've ever had the pleasure of dealing with. I have zero doubt he will make a top-notch star admin. Even if it isn't a big deal :) Damnit, I wasn't fast enough to get the second support spot! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. I genuinely thought Ched was already an admin. His comments to other users show that he is extremely kind and will make an exemplary admin. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support. I also thought Ched was already an admin. I couldn't think of a better person for the job. Matt (talk) 04:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support. Strikes me as a top notch guy, has plenty of common sense, and is funny and pleasant to deal with. He will make a fine admin.--Kubigula (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Strong Support Very level headed, eager to improve himself, excellent at discussions, involvement in policy discussions. Overall solid candidate that will make an excellent admin. Royalbroil 04:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Yup. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support. I just spent a half hour trawling Ched's edit history confirming what I already thought from interaction with him: A thoughtful adult; helpful and reasonable; windmill tilting adverse; involved; smart enough to know when he doesn't know and to instruct when he does; not a potted plant; probably won't delete the main page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Cluebat Keegan^talk 04:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support, a quick bit of research shows no major issues. Nakon 05:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support, seems to have a good handle on policy and no problem asking when he's not sure. Communicates well and gets on with all sorts of people, manages to encourage folks even when differences arise - someone ought to have forced him into mopdom earlier. Shell ^babelfish 06:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support — in my limited time here I've seen only good things from Ched and would trust him as an admin. I can only find one criticism: no images uploaded..! Bigger digger (talk) 06:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Strong Support Ched is an awesome Wikipedian who will continue that as an admin. Good luck! Dotty••|☎ 07:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Support-ish Pedro says you take part in AfDs, but you've only taken part in 3 AfDs in the last several thousand edits. So as long as you stay away from closing AfDs, you have my support. Aditya ^α _ß 08:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Moved to neutral[reply]

22. Support per my badgering him to go for adminship just yesterday(?). Ched is one of the most helpful and clueful editors that became active at the beginning of this year and has proven time and time again that he will do nothing but the best for the project and never do anything before making sure he knows what he does. Regards SoWhy 09:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. May as well. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Good work. ceranthor 10:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. The oppose section doesn't give me any pause. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 10:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support per all those above. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support Happy to support as a cluefull editor. I've noticed Ched in a number of discussions on Wiki, and always found his views worth paying attention to. If I ever got round to writing up one of those "if any three of the following request it I will give up the bit" lists, his name would be on it. I might expand on this if the percentage drops below 90% ϢereSpielChequers 12:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support, absolutely. I can tell you're a content builder just by looking at the length of your answers! Tried to find a dark secret in your contributions, but failed. Apparently, I'm not the only one. Jafeluv (talk) 12:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Well, if you've got 10,000 edits you look ready. Good luck with the tools. –BuickCenturyDriver 12:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Dangerously clueful. Constructive contributions at the newly minted WP:ADMREV. –xeno^talk 12:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. make it so Dlohcierekim 12:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support sensible candidate. --Kanonkas :  Talk  13:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And a sensible signature... :) Pedro :  Chat  13:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

34. Per me. — Aitias // discussion 13:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support - I have seen them around and their comments have a high signal to noise ratio. Jehochman ^Talk 13:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support - I can't find anything not to like. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. Sure why not? Majorly talk 14:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support - I've seen Ched around, and have always felt that comments were in line with expectations of admins. (It was indeed a little surprising to find that he wasn't one already.) Although I'd prefer a more direct answer to Q1, the latter part of Q3 (in particular) impressed. So yes, lots of positives and few discernible negatives. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 14:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support. After careful consideration of the oppos... - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, now we've gone some actual opposition (damn, will no one escape unscathed?), but it seems more in the nature of (perfectly acceptable) protest than opposition to me. - Dank (push to talk) 16:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

40. Support I thought he was already an admin. tempodivalse [☎] 14:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support Great answers to questions and from reading his past comments, Ched seems to understand the encyclopedia very well. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 14:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support. No problems here. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support Ched is a top notch candidate, Neuro hit the nail right on the head with his description.--kelapstick (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support. Not sure we've crossed paths (although my signature did resemble yours a few months back) but your edits and responses look great. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support. Especially liked the answers to questions 6 and 11. Dekimasuよ! 15:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support. I don't see any evidence Ched would abuse the tools. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 15:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support. I've interacted with Ched, and found him to be very polite, calm, and sensible, and to be committed to the good of the project. Best wishes. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. SupportNo question. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 16:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support You've always seemed thoughtful and well-spoken when I've encountered you, and I trust that you won't start doing a whole lot of admin backlog work until you've gotten some experience (for example, with CSD), as you suggested in your answers above. Some people below mentioned no need for the tools, but personally I believe there's no harm in giving the mop to every editor who has a brain in their head and won't abuse the tools...especially in easy stuff like blocking vandals, even if you don't plan on spending your life clearing up admin backlogs, if you run across a vandal while doing your regular edit work and you have the tools to block him, that's one less thing for other admins to have to deal with. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. Some resarvations, but overall, this user seems like they have a clue, which is my standard for support. As far as CSD goes, I encourage you to talk to Spartacus or SoWhy or any other adminstrator who is highly active in teaching proper CSD, as there is a lot of things that one really needs to learn properly before starting. In addition, perhaps you could just tag articles instead of deleting them straight off for your first several hundred new pages? However, I wish to support because that the user seems to be know what he is doing, that I have always found him helpful to new editors, and that his earliest contributions show that he is willing to take the time to learn things properly before diving into things. NW (Talk) 17:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support No issues that I see. Good Luck!! America69 (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support--Giants27 (t|c) 20:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support Excellent user Triplestop (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. Strong support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards in that candidate has never been blocked, is a DYK contributor, makes exceptionally thoughtful comments in AfDs, and has made other nice and intelligent comments that earned him a place on User:A_Nobody#List_of_editors_who_have_agreed_with_my_arguments_or_made_other_nice_observations_about_my_efforts. Good luck! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. Strong support - Ched is one of the few users left that uses common sense and has an abundance of clue. After many positive interactions, I am confident Ched will put the tools to good use. Tiptoety ^talk 21:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. Reluctant support I'm tempted to oppose as there's a distinct lack of excitement and drama for this RfA so far. I would like to see Ched forged into an admin through a real trial by fire. There's still time so hope remains... ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, don't worry. I have a flamethrower and Ched knows I'll use it if necessary :) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

57. Support - Good understanding of policy. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
58. No reason why not to. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support - Jonathunder (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support. Clueful editor, does good work, has a pretty good handle on policies and procedures. It's a green light from me. Useight (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support Good luck! Ray^Talk 23:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support Of course; fantastic candidate. Chzz : Chat 00:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)(  Chzz  ►  )[reply]
63. Support Good candidate. -download ׀ sign! 00:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support No doubts here. Steven Walling (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
66. Strong Support as I find none of the oppose arguments to hold any water (especially not the accusation of "being too social", whatever that's supposed to mean). I see a lot which makes me think that Ched will use the tools wisely and do a lot more to improve the encyclopedia overall. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
67. Why the hell not? Pmlineditor  ^Talk 10:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
68. Definitely. Would support this candidate any day, and while I note the opposers have reasons, I don't agree with them at all, and personally find their reasons to oppose to be weak and without merit. Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 12:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps they equally find your reasons to suport to be "weak and without merit" but are more polite than you in not saying so? Just a thought. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

69. Ched's a great user, who very evidently puts a lot of thought into his actions here. His cluefulness, courtesy and contributions make me confident he'll make a great admin. And the number of "c" words in the previous sentence was completely unintended. ~ mazca ^t|c 13:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support Level-headed editor, who's always willing to learn. Can be trusted. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support Definitely! LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 15:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support, good answer to Q10. Tan | 39 01:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support Certainly a net positive to the project. hmwithτ 16:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
74. I've had good interactions with this user and trust him. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support I have full confidence in this user. -- œ^™ 23:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support, don't see anything that would give me a bad feeling. Wizardman 01:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support For awhile I thought this user was an admin. Glad to see they're finally earning the flag. Also: Not enough admins currently(just kidding folks).— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support - I see no reason that this user shouldn't be an admin, to be honest, I think he was already. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
79. Weak Support User has been around since Nov 2008 and see no misuse of tools and rollback has been used well.Through I agree with some of the concerns in both oppose and neutral sections feel the project will only gain with the user having tools and user will show discretion while using the tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
80. Weak Support I was going to write just "strong support, meets all my standards," but some of the issues raised below (opposes) give me pause. Best of luck. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support Good luck

Oppose

1. "I'm not going to take part in any "Civility Police crusade", but I'll also expect others to adhere by our core civility guidelines as long as they are in place." That a broken policy is in place should be an encouragement to change it, not an excuse to enforce it. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Hi Malleus. At RFA we appoint admins to administer policy not to make it. If you disagree with wp:civility may I suggest you state your case for change there or at the pump. Opposing a candidate because they intend to wield the mop in accordance with our civility policy is unlikely to change our civility policy, and I suspect for most RFA !voters it sounds more like a reason to support the candidate than to oppose. ϢereSpielChequers 16:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I think Malleus is wary of candidates looking to wield the buttons in support of CIVIL. This isn't to say MF (and I apologize for speaking for him - he can clarify) wishes to see administrators act ruthlessly or editors behave rudely, but rather WP:CIVIL is bandied about ad nauseum and any block enforced behind the policy is punitive. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Hi Wisdom, I did reread Malleus's comment to see if I could interpret it that way. But in my view the combination of him describing Civility as a broken policy and quoting Ched saying that he was "not going to take part in any "Civility Police crusade"" , implied that though Ched does not intend to be an over zealous enforcer of wp:civility Malleus is opposing because he regards that policy as "broken". If Malleus meant to express concern that notwithstanding that statement Ched might become an over zealous enforcer of wp:civil; then I would suggest that Malleus clarify and give diffs that illustrate such a concern. ϢereSpielChequers 17:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Wisdom is perfectly correct in his interpretation of my rather straightforward statement, and I will thank you not to patronisingly lecture me about what RfA is and isn't. It is my firm belief that Ched would be yet another over-zealous crusader working with the civility police, and hence I oppose on that basis. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Except he indicates exactly the opposite...I'm confused here. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   To you perhaps, not to me. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. His edit account is over 10,455 which includes "his rollback usage" during the past 8 months. The candidate seems civil and kind, however, I have an impression that he seems to think Wikipedia is a social gathering with a light heart. I want serious and dedicated admins, so sorry. I have nothing personal.--Caspian blue 16:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Is there anything in particular that gives you the impression that Ched is too social, or is it just a gut feeling? EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   That is not my gut feeling, but an observation from the candidate' several interactions with others. I do not want to "name names" to explain my expression on the candidate.--Caspian blue 16:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. My sole interaction (as far as I can recall) with the candidate was this mix of tl;dr rambling, borderline personal attacks and patronising guff. Since it was less than a month ago, it's certainly recent enough for me not to give any benefit of the doubt here. – iridescent 17:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Well I'd have to disagree with you there. He sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Not quite the things I would say, but still, I don't think it's an issue to oppose somebody over. Do you think he'd abuse or misuse the tools, based solely on a single interaction that, at least in my view, looks like a fairly collegial one? Majorly talk 17:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   (ec) I don't really see any personal attacks there. Granted, I'm not familiar with the whole background of your discussion, but I'm just saying. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Read the last bit of my comment above ("it's certainly recent enough…"). He may be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but descending on my talkpage with an apparently made-up allegation, for which he can't produce a single diff in evidence – and replying when asked to produce said evidence with "Awww, come on girl, cut me some slack here" – doesn't make me want to go start looking. (Seeing this in his recent history doesn't exactly raise my opinion, either.) – iridescent 17:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm genuinely curious what it is in the link you post immediately above that you find unfavorable. I read it twice looking for Jimmy Hoffa's body buried somewhere between the lines and only found more to recommend him.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   It might be helpful to read the full conversation for context.  Skomorokh  22:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I wasn't referring to that thread. When I said "the link you post immediately above", I referred to the diff in the parenthetical phrase (this one).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry for the confusion, I wasn't replying to your comment specifically; threaded discussion does not work so well on wikis. Cheers,  Skomorokh  22:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Got ya. The one indent fooled me.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose based on my expectations of candidates which includes, as a minimum, ~1 year of active participation for true 'Wikiwideview' to be obtained (candidate registered November 2008); article edit count seems high on first glance but this suggests it's probably mostly made up of automated edits? Coldmachine^Talk 08:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Hi Coldmachine, That report lists articles the candidate has edited with 1952 in NASCAR as the one he has edited most often. What makes you think edits like these are "probably automated"? ϢereSpielChequers 09:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Contribs to that article don't form the majority of his edit count, though, do they? The toolserver count shows how article contribs taper off into single figures quite quickly which led me to believe the majority of the 4528 edits to mainspace were automated. Looking through this confirmed my impression: I see the majority of the edit count seems to be made up of cat adds using HotCat. That says 'automated' to me. Coldmachine^Talk 11:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   As opposed to clicking edit at either the top or the section closest to the bottom, typing [[Category:Whatever]] manually, typing in an edit summary, and pressing save, and repeating over many pages? HotCat isn't an automated tool, it's a much much easier way to do something that is undervalued and difficult to do en masse without HotCat. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   For what it's worth, 24.76% of his edits are automated. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for that total Juliancolton. Still seems pretty high to me. I'm not disputing the value of those edits, I'm just saying that, personally, I like to see more significant and considered encyclopaedia building from RfA candidates. Coldmachine^Talk 15:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose. It was a sure support vote until I checked your user page. First there are complaints of "delete police" [1] then some emotional vent [2] then a menacing "Editing at Wikipedia is a privilege ... not a right." [3] which is still there. All in the course of a month or two (January-March, "yesterday" in wiki-time). Sorry, you're not up to deciding who has the "privilege" and who doesn't. NVO (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, just to reply to your concerns, but do you expect Ched to be emotionless? Editing Wikipedia is hard, and getting burnt out from time to time happens. In my opinion, this diff shows maturity, Ched has taken a break when times get tough. I view this as being better than slugging away every day editing till you crack the shits and do something bad. Second diff, people feel down from time to time. I certainly don't hope you expect admins to have no feelings..if so...well what are you doing here? Admins are real people too, and you need to understand that. And as for the third diff, Ched is correct completely. Editing Wikipedia is a privelige, it is not a right. Actually, thats in policy. See WP:Free speech, which says

   "In short, editing Wikipedia is a privilege granted to you by the permission of the Wikimedia Foundation, and can be revoked at any time for whatever reason that organization sees fit to do so."

   So, uh, apart from those three points, all which I have rebutted, is there any other reason you're opposing Ched's adminship? Please base your oppose on solid policy, and why you think Ched would be unfit to be an admin, rather than superficial matters that would have no effect on him using the block, delete, and protect tools. Best, Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 12:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Your rebuttal doesn't really seem to assume good faith of NVO's view/reasoning here; I don't see him/her saying anything about admins being "emotionless" or anything to indicate s/he doesn't realise "admins are real people too"...seems like you're putting words into someone's mouth. And WP:FREESPEECH is not a policy or a guideline...I'm not entirely sure what gave you that impression. Coldmachine^Talk 15:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Correct me if I'm wrong but at the time of posting main page said "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". NVO (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   You're correct, it's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not "The free encyclopedia that anyone may edit. Editing Wikipedia is a privelige, and if that privelige is misused, can be revoked. I think Ched is stating just that. Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 00:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Don't you find this hectoring of every oppose vote to be rather unseemly? I certainly do, and I'm rather surprised to see that Ched hasn't stepped in to quell it. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   (out of sequence post) Given your lack of faith in my abilities to perform administrative functions, I'm somewhat confused at the expectation that I should "step in" to quell anything. Not sure what you're expecting of me here, but I will do my best - and post below. — Ched :  ?  03:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   What I expect of you is what I expect of everyone, consistency. You have expressed a strong desire to uphold what I firmly to be a broken and damaging civility policy, yet appeared quite happy to allow the hectoring of anyone expressing an honestly held view in this oppose section. I do not consider that to be a consistent position. The way to avoid "incivility" is to avoid the triggers for it. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   ←Alright.. Enough Malleuse is exactly right here. There are very valid opposes, and it is not right that they should be hounded for stating their viewpoints. We all seek different requirements in those that stand before RfA, and as much as I appreciate the support of those who would defend me, I also believe that those who don't agree with my viewpoints have every right to speak their mind. Please allow those who have concerns to state their beliefs without confrontation. — Ched :  ?  00:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Neutral. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. Limited contributions to AfD. This comment misquotes WP:BLP1E. Well-reasoned comments are made here and here. I don't see evidence of warning vandals or referral to AIV. Otherwise, generally good collaboration with other editors. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral: Good editor, but doubtful about actually performing administrator tasks.. South Bay (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral Insufficient experience in AIV and AfD (as claimed in the nomination statement). Not enough to oppose though. Aditya ^α _ß 14:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]