Chetsford (talk·contribs) – It is my pleasure to present Chetsford to the community for consideration as an administrator. Chetsford is an all round user: his content contributions are second to none, with three featured articles, nine good articles, and 97 DYKs.Beyond his impressive audited content, Chet also helps the project through his work in NPP and AfC. These areas are under appreciated and take a lot of work and patience dealing with predominately new users, many of whom are unhappy with Wikipedia processes. In any situation where Chet has encountered them or another disgruntled user, I think you'll find he has responded calmly and collectedly in a way that we would expect administrators to behave.All-in-all, I think Chetsford would be an ideal administrator because he has the temperament we need with an unwavering commitment to improving content for our readers. I hope you will join me in supporting his RfA. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I second what Tony writes about Chetsford. While he is an outstanding content contributor (with multiple, impressive FAs, GAs and DYKs), he has also in my opinion turned out to be a most mature and stable editor over time. Probably his content focus was exemplified by his getting the autoreviewer bit just above 3 months after he started editing. The 227 articles he has created in his tenure here provide him ample breadth of experience in understanding our key guidelines and policies and also in understanding the nuances of team work, communication and conflict resolution. At the same time, his admin focus can be estimated by the actual work he continues doing in maintaining the website. Apart from what Tony writes above, in Chetsford's close to 25,000 edits till date, he has also involved rigorously in areas like AfD and CSD – his AfD match percentage (even though this is just a number) stands above 90%, not considering the no consensus closures, and he has an as impressive CSD log. I would probably look forward to his increasing involvement in admining in these areas too. I close my nomination by bringing out an example of the maturity that Chetsford has regularly displayed. In an AfD last year, where the discussion was about an article he had created, Chetsford's most balanced analysis stood more for the betterment of the quality of this project than in holding on to something he "owned". In that AfD, one of the statements he said was: "I made this early in my WP career and, had I the benefit of experience, I might have invested my energy elsewhere rather than in an article on an unindexed journal. If the decision comes down to delete, I won't be really torn up." That, my friends, is as committed as I could probably (never) get. I hope you support this excellent candidate's request for adminship, as Tony and I excitedly do. Warmly, Lourdes 08:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for the nomination. I accept. (Also, as a customary disclosure, I have not edited for pay.) Chetsford (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A:Back in JanuaryMartin inquired of my interest in adminship. At the time I declined as I didn't have any compelling reason to be an admin. Since then, however, I have started to regularly observe a persistent backlog in two areas which I would like to help remedy, as well as a third area in which — while not necessarily backlogged — I think I could provide assistance.
The first area is in RfC closures. Since I'm not very involved in contentious content areas, I try to regularly contribute to RfC closures as a non-admin and have, thus far, not had much in the way of complaints. However, an increasing number of RfC closures make specific requests for closure by an admin only. These sometimes languish in an unclosed state and I feel I could help in resolving these "admin only" closures in the same way I do for non-admin RfC closures.
The second area is in Requests for Page Protection. We have a lot of great admins patrolling this area but it doesn't ever seem to be enough. This may be due to the fact that the encyclopedia is expanding faster than it's intaking new editors. While I believe page protection should be applied only in the most serious situations, I regularly see fairly straightforward requests for pending changes or semi-protection in response to persistent BLP vandalism from burner accounts that linger for 12 or 13 hours. This creates extra work for vandal fighters.
Finally, I'm fairly active at AfC. During the course of new article reviewing it's not uncommon for editors to come across pages that require speedy deletion. In some cases, like G6 CSDs involving the deletion of an existing redirect to allow movement of a draft into the same space, it can be derailing for reviewers to have to wait too long for their request to be processed. Having an extra set of hands to help manage these would be helpful, I think.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Most of what I do in terms of content contribution is in the development of new articles, versus editing existing articles. Two articles I created from scratch with which I'm particularly happy are Herman Vandenburg Ames and Helicopter 66. Working on Ames, who was an important asterisk in the life of Ezra Pound, was very enjoyable. While he was clearly notable, some of the details of his life had been lost to the sands of time so it involved a bit of detective work and a trip to the special collections room at the Van Pelt-Dietrich Library to obtain an out-of-print book. Since I don't live in Pennsylvania I had to wait until I happened to be in the area for unrelated reasons which meant it took some extra time to build this article up to FA status, but also made the pay-off especially satisfying. I also think United States Zouave Cadets, which was an all-time DYK page view leader, turned out well. It's made it to A-class but still has a bit of work before I'll be ready to submit it to FAC.
I also enjoy creating short articles on topics that contribute to forgotten or neglected moments of pre-WP history, as our content on contemporary history often seems weighted to 2000 and later. These are sometimes on topics which will probably never be expansive enough to get to FA or GA. For instance, HPA-23, an almost forgotten episode from the early days of the AIDS epidemic. I also think I've done an okay job on short biographies of people notable for niche or highly specific achievements, such as Sara Sheffield and John Hirasaki.
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: I try to help as much as possible reviewing drafts at AfC so am regularly accused of incompetence by editors whose drafts I've declined. However, having once been a new editor myself I can understand, and try to empathize with, their frustration. It can be confusing for a new editor who tries to model a draft article off an existing, poorly sourced article in mainspace, only to have their draft rejected. Simply telling this person WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is rarely something they find satisfying. To the greatest extent possible I try to exhibit patience and, if all else fails, point them to other resources they could access such as WP:TEAHOUSE, or advise that they can simply resubmit for a second opinion from a different editor. Even though these recommendations are rarely actioned, I think it's important they understand that their participation at WP is not subject to the personal idiosyncrasies and whims of a single editor.
Aside from the discontent of new editors whose articles I have declined at AfC, I have had two minor conflicts with editors regarding AfD nominations I made with which they disagreed. In both cases I found that remaining WP:CIVIL helped to avoid escalating the situation inasmuch as possible.
You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.
4. Have you ever dealt with a problem on Wikipedia in a way that you now regret? If so, how would you now resolve the problem differently?
A: In general, WP has not been a highly stressful activity for me and I've not encountered many situations I'd characterize as problems. However, I'd note an occasion about a year ago when an editor disagreed with several AfDs I'd made on closely related topics and felt that I was targeting articles on specific subject-matter. While that was not the case, I can appreciate that it might have appeared that way to him/her given the close proximity of several of the AfDs in question. Text kills much of the nuance in interpersonal communication and perception is as important as intent in our interactions with others. I've tried to keep that lesson in mind since. Chetsford (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
5. From a perusal of your major edited articles, I hope you concur that you are an US centric contributor. How do you think you will be able to help in matters relating to non US issues (are you familiar with some of the political/cultural backgrounds to some subjects)? ps. RfA is not comfortable, but then neither is adminship sometimes - if you are able to withstand this, then you were correct in accepting the nomination.
A: I would agree my contributions tend to edge towards topics related to the U.S., however, I also have created or significantly developed a number of non-U.S. articles such as the FA-classed Emanuel Moravec and GA-classed Government Army (Bohemia and Moravia), as well as a number of recent articles on non-American diplomats such as Peruvian ambassador to China Harold Forsyth, and articles like the Gajda Affair, German People's Radio, etc. In all these cases I have been open to feedback from those with perspectives that might offer a different worldview than my own. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that it is able to corral editors from diverse backgrounds. This is an asset for editors and one I try never to under appreciate. Chetsford (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
6. You are fairly new to Wikipedia, having only edited for 2 years (as far as I can tell, I may have made a mistake). Would you say you have gained a reasonable amount of experience in a couple of years?
A: That's a good question and you're correct (two years and three months, to be precise). I do believe I've gained reasonable experience in that time, however, I don't anticipate there will ever come a point when I'll have learned everything there is to know about WP. More specific to the subject of RfA, I don’t anticipate entering with 100-percent competence in the use of the tools on day one. Due to that, I would always self-regulate my activity to those areas in which I was comfortable and competent. In other areas I would either defer to more experienced admins or seek counsel from them first. Chetsford (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
7. What is the most important policy on Wikipedia, and why?
A: Thanks for the question. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV are both important policies. However, WP:V is what differences Wikipedia from many similar projects out there, active and inactive, that have attempted to ape it. Chetsford (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC); edited 01:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
8. How is it considered a net positive to the encyclopedia when editors specialize in a particular content or project area and their editing activity suggests that they have no clue or could care less about the encyclopedia as a whole?
A: That's an interesting question. To (very roughly) paraphrase Aristotle, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Each editor here is a volunteer and I don't think we can demand someone who is only interested in contributing content on Wagnerian opera to also help out on the Video Games WikiProject or vice versa. I think all constructive contributions have potential to help the project, even if they're of a specialized nature. Chetsford (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
9. An AFD is closed 50 minutes early (that is after 167 hours and 10 minutes instead of 168 hours) and 10 editors have commented there at that point.You objected to it in this DRV .Are you stating that each and every AFD should be closed after only 168 hours only and not even one minute early then it is violation of WP:NOTEARLY or you believe that had it being open for the remaining 50 minutes would have altered the outcome of the AFD.
A: Thank you for the question. My principal objection to the AfD close in the case you've cited was due to no consensus being reached per WP:NOTAVOTE, while the matter of WP:NOTEARLY was really secondary for me. In general, however, I think we should try to keep articles open for a full seven days as some !voters look at the AfD logs "bottom up", a point better argued by another editor later in the DRV in question. Chetsford (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
10. Now you stated that "I feel the close should be overturned to no consensus" (it was closed as Keep) and opened this DRV . Why were you specific here the end result or default result of both Keep and no consensus is the same the article stays.
A: My reading of the discussion in the AfD was that it was moving along an increasingly heated trajectory that was no longer constructive. While I believed then, and still believe now, that this article does not meet our standards under WP:NCORP I didn't feel it was worth pressing the matter if there was a likelihood the discussion might become more charged, a scenario which seemed possible. A no consensus close would have left open the possibility of the question being revisited down the road when the situation had cooled. A Keep close would not have precluded that but would have made (in my opinion) such a course ill-advised as it could have made the Keep !voters feel they were being steamrolled. As I said in my response to Question 4, perception is as important as intent in our interactions with others. Chetsford (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Can you please clarify on this in a renomination it does not matter whether it is closed as Keep and No consenus ? Then why did go to DRV to get the close overturned to no consensus if it was heated ? You could have waited and renominated the article for deletion directly in due course no need for DRV . Can you please clarify whether you feel it being closed 50 minutes early would have altered the outcome of the AFD.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
12. Have you edited Wikipedia with other accounts prior to this one? --Pudeo (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
A: Not with other accounts, however, prior to registering I made sporadic contributions as an unregistered (IP) editor. These were mostly minor, functional edits such as punctuation correction and, in a handful of instances, insertion of a reference in places where one was lacking. I have not made any IP edits since registering an account. Chetsford (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
13. My lucky number! As I said in my support comment, I would conduct a review your work for AFC. I didn't see anything that concerned me for the last few months. Though I did find some quirks for how you went about reviewing D&D related drafts. First, here you state you are not a fan of creating WP articles for RPG supplements... (though would accept that on) Yet you accepted four separate articles on D&D expansions (including it). While I agree with you accepting these articles, can you explain this discrepancy? –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 03:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
A: Hi, thanks for the question. You're correct that I am of the opinion that having a standalone article for every RPG supplement in existence is of questionable reader benefit. However, this is just personal opinion and not WP policy. The AfCs you cited seemed to meet our minimum standards for WP:N which is why I accepted them. As an AfC reviewer I don't believe I have the right to decline an article simply because WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
I declined Xanathar's Guide to Everything the first time it was submitted for "insufficient WP:RS to demonstrate WP:GNG" . (The AfC reviewing guidelines, in my reading, preclude reviewers conducting WP:BEFORE ("If what is written in the submission meets the notability guidelines, but the submission lacks references to evidence this, then the underlying issue is inadequate verification and the submission should be declined for that reason."), though I think others take a more liberal view. The draft was subsequently improved with RS and, when it was resubmitted, I accepted it. Chetsford (talk) 07:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
14. The most recent of the D&D-related articles you've reviewed is now up for deletion. As the reviewer, are you planning on voting? Sorry if these questions seem a little tough for a near-unanimous RFA. I just don't have much experience interacting with you, so these questions are just to help me get to know your thought process for AFC. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 03:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
A: No, I'm busy at RfA right now!
Aside from that, though, I probably still wouldn't !vote. I don't think there's anything wrong with an AfC reviewer casting a !vote when one of the articles they've accepted goes to AfD, as occasionally happens. In this case, though, the most recent Keep !voter has made mostly the same arguments that I would and, since this is WP:NOTAVOTE, I don't think anything would be added by me simply saying "Keep per X". That said, I do commiserate with the editor who nominated it for deletion as I think the article was WP:REFBOMBed (albeit unnecessarily) which can often be a red flag. Chetsford (talk) 07:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
15. With your acceptance of Aprimo on 1 February 2019 in my opinion a paid editor was permitted to submit at edit through AfC which you picked up 2 hours later using a method that allowed content they may have regarded as negative to Aprimo to be removed. Can you analyze actions and interventions on the Aprimo article, Talk:Aprimo page and myself and closing administrator and at User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 24#Aprimo and determine what you did both right and wrong. See also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 February 6 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 February 18 and also comment on the linkage of Aprimo with DoubleClick that the Paid was not included in the paid Editor's submission but was in the hidden history and which I cynically might claim a marketting person might not wish to publicise and which I added to the Aprimo article on 25 May 2019. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
A: As I understand your question, you are asking my opinion on the request you expressed in several deletion reviews to have a previous version of an article, which was turned into a redirect and then itself G6 CSDed in order to make way for the current version submitted via AfC, restored into your sandbox. My opinion is that you certainly have a right to make such a request. Insofar as my opinion on the decision of various admins to decline that request, I have none. I am unable to view the contents of the deleted article. Therefore, I don't feel I'm qualified to craft a fully informed opinion on the decision of the admins in question. I hope this answers your question, however, if I failed to do so please post a follow-up and I'll try to clarify my response. Chetsford (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. It's not really covered the ground I was looking for. If I WP:AGF you genuinely didn't get the crux of my question ... which may be a problem ... at worst it would be evasion of the question. I don't recall any restore to my sandbox or user area. I do see mistakes in procedure. I do see evidence of my requesting the admin for that and then quickly interjecting to thank the admin for not not doing what I requested but doing something else ... then wondering why I appeared to be narked. I'm also a little concerned eagerness to support a paid editor possibly to the extent of become non neutral. I'm really looking for a more detailed analysis of the issues that occurred here. I'm really not trying to lead here but scrutinise how well you can analyse the situation. (Your initial answer means I may form a specific senario as my 2nd question but if I do that does not replace this question). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not entirely clear what your follow-up question is, however, I will say in response to your statement that it is absolutely true a large proportion of articles submitted through AfC are from both disclosed and undisclosed WP:PAID editors. Our current policy not only permits, but indeed encourages, PAID editors to submit article creation requests through AfC and I have approved many such requests. Until our policy changes to prohibit AfC submissions by PAID editors I will continue to accept such articles when they meet our standards for WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. I will also continue to decline those articles which don't, to caution editors responsible for undisclosed PAID submissions, and to add Template:Connected contributor (paid) to pages I accept in which the creators are unambiguously PAID editors. However, as I said in response to question 13, I don't believe I have the right to create more rigorous article acceptance standards than the community has created and then to apply those personal standards in article reviewing. I am obligated to either follow policy, to try to amend the policy, or to choose not to participate in that particular aspect of WP if to do so would create unbearable discomfort for me. In the specific case you cited, the article submission met our N, V, and NPOV standards and the editor had disclosed their affiliation in the manner described by WP:DISCLOSEPAY.
I will acknowledge that I am aware there are a few AfC reviewers who do not take this approach and decline all PAID submissions. I don't agree with this from a policy perspective, as it is not supported by our policy. I also don't agree with this from a practical perspective as we have seen it doesn't actually stop PAID editing, it simply pushes it underground and outside our already limited ability to regulate through the AfC process. Community-supported technical remedies to slow the insertion of unsuitable material are great, and I fully supported implementation of WP:ACREQ. Remedies of a purely philosophical nature are not great, particularly when they're unsupported by policy and are selectively applied by individual editors as an expression of their personal preferences or ideals. Chetsford (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Thankyou. I'm not getting what I'm looking for but I am willing to accept it is how I have posed this question. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
16. As an administrator you pick up a CSD:G6 request from a AfC reviewer wishing to promote Draft:X to article space but is prevented by an existing article X which has substantial history. (Aside: As it happens the draft was created by paid editor Y but completely rewitten by paid editor Z just four hour before but its unclear if you would have known of checked this). What would your actions be and are there any alternatives to AfC for this content change and what would be the advantages of those. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
A: Thank you for the question. A G6 speedy deletion can't be used simply to vacate space that contains an article in order to move an identically named article into that space. It can only be used to vacate a page containing a redirect which is blocking a move (along with a few other situations). Therefore, my action would be to decline the speedy deletion request and to, instead, recommend the draft be renamed per WP:PARENDIS prior to acceptance. Chetsford (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Thankyou for that answer. I would like to drill down on the case where page X is a redirect rather than an article .... I believe there may be (at least) three cases ... (1) the redirect does not have a major history, (2) the redirect has a major page history but not marked R with history and (3) the redirect is marked R with history. In the first case CSD:G6 obviously applies ... but do you agree both the other cases are within the remit of CSD:G6 ? Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the second two cases could be speedily deleted under G6. While we do not have specific preservation policies that cover this scenario, our norms and practices suppose that the deleting admin in cases such as this would preserve non-trivial history by archiving it to a talk namespace and then linking that archive from the new article's talk page. Of course, there are also several valid reasons a deleting admin might elect not to do this. Chetsford (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Thankyou for your response. If one follows WP:G6 and the link to [] in the senario (which is a guideline page) I seem to see the answer However, if the target page title has a major history it should never be simply deleted, as we need to retain such page histories for proper copyright attribution. ... I note the bolded never and it details 3 ways for dealing with the senario. Your answer Yes, the second two cases could be speedily deleted under G6 seems at variance with the never ... can you explain this apparent discrepency ? Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't see a discrepancy. Archiving content to a talk namespace and linking that archive to the new article's talk page, the method I described in my response above, is in fact one of the three methods listed in the link you posted by which content can be preserved. Chetsford (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Thankyou for that response I will accept that direction ... but I see the never as requiring history retention by default unless a good reason is not for not so doing. Would you care to expand on Of course, there are also several valid reasons a deleting admin might elect not to do this thus overriding the guidelines and would you expect such a reason to be given if the guidelines were overridden? Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC) Struck continuation of line of questioning as candidate has already shown good faith in answering quite near to the end of the scrutinisation window
Support I've known about Chetsford for ages. Strong candidate, extremly industrious and well worth admission to the corps. scope_creepTalk 14:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
An editor I have come across numerous times. Every encounter has been positive. My experience of them echoes the comments by the nominators. Seeing them standing is enough to renew my faith in Wikipedia. A wholehearted Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Well rounded editor who will be an asset to the community as a sysop. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Support - This user seems to have the judgment, integrity, and commitment needed to be a good admin. I've only a passing familiarity with his or her work but what I have seen has been uniformly of average to superior quality. Michepman (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Support - Yes, yes, yes to another helping hand at RfPP. You’ve also written some great articles.—NØ 14:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Support good answer to Q4, learns and improves from past experiences. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I am impressed with their content contributions in particular, but also their work closing RFCs and a desire to close more as an admin. I’ve closed my share too and am all too familiar with this admin only desire for a closer, so happy to give my support to one willing to work on this backlog with demonstrated level headed experience doing so. Good luck. StevenCrossinHelp resolve disputes! 16:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Support From my perspective, would be a good addition to the admin group. I support individuals who are careful about their interactions with others and are willing to thoughtfully take a close look at their own behavior. Glennfcowan (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Support. per nomination statements. I surprisingly haven't seen this editor before at AFC and will double check their record their to make sure the support is well-founded, but I have no reason to believe it will be anything less than great. Cheers! –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 16:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Just commenting that I liked the answers to the questions and my concerns were reasonably satisfied. Glad to hopefully see Chetsford become an admin! :D –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 18:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Support - Satisfied with the answer to my question. Thank you for your response, and I wish you luck. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Chetsford will be an excellent addition to our admin corps. Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 17:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Support per nominators, plus sensible answer to Q6. I have no concerns about the perceived focus on US topics mentioned in Q5 - a particular interest in one subject area will do no harm to our coverage in other areas. We may need more admins with an interest in non-US topics, but there's no cap to the number of editors we promote, there's no point in barring people with an interest in US topics. (Plus, if Chetsford is writing FAs on non-US topics, it's a bit of a non-issue anyway...) GirthSummit (blether) 17:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Support per nom and own research. Easily trustable with the tools. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 18:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Support - admirably meets all the requirements for being an all round admin. Two years with this kind of engagement, especially to NPP, is more than enough to gain the required experience. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Support per nomination, net positive! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Support - I think you are ready. CLCStudent (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Support, no concerns. bd2412T 20:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Support, no concerns; have shown the skill to use the tools, and the temperment to apply them properly. Britishfinance (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Support with no qualms, and a good couple of uses for the toolset. J947's public account 21:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Support very prolific. (Also on a tangent, approved my first ever article via the AfC process). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Support - Talk page archives are filled with evidence of patience and courtesy. I did see a few more RfC concerns than Q1 led me to expect, but on the whole Chetsford looks to be a strong addition to the admin corps. MarginalCost (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Support - Chetsford, you weren't on my radar, but for one of the only times in memory, your answers to the above-posed questions were so ideal as to be enough despite that. Thank you for your work on the project! - Julietdeltalima(talk) 22:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Support. Will be a good addition to our admin team.--Darwinek (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Support I like the answers to questions 4 and 7. Questions 5 and 8 are egregious and should be reconsidered. Airbornemihir (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
This is clearly a qualified candidate. Mz7 (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Support – Terrific candidate. Kurtis(talk) 00:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Support. Agreed, promising candidate. El_C 01:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Support. Won't break Floq's new record, but possibly should. Hope you manage to do what you set out to do next, which seems to be becoming a respected admin closer. Looking good so far! 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 01:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I see nothing to indicate that the candidate would abuse the tools. SQLQuery me! 01:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Support I know Chetsford's work through his involvement with Wikiproject Military history. His content work is excellent, and he has worked well in non-US content creation areas like the FA on Emanuel Moravec which I reviewed at Milhist A-Class and at FAC. From what I have seen, he has a calm and mature nature, and is teachable, responding positively to feedback. All great attributes for an admin. Has demonstrated a need for the tools, and I trust him with them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Support I don't have any personal familiarity with this editor, but I've not uncovered anything that gives me pause. Their record is solid with no obvious red or yellow flags. The sole oppose is unpersuasive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Support I've dovetailed with them on some AfDs and know them to be a quality, knowledgeable user. No issues at all with giving them the mop. SportingFlyerT·C 05:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Support I haven't had much to do with this editor in the past, but my impression has been vaguely favourable. A quick check of recent contributions and the answers to the questions makes me confident they'll be a good administrator. ReykYO! 07:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Strong support: based on spotchecks and the testimony of editors above, I believe the candidate has an excellent temperament and is always civil, my number one concern in an admin. Their participation at AFD and CSD gives them a demonstrable need for the tools and the single oppose currently present does not make me believe they cannot be trusted with the mop. — Bilorv (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Support - if you get a co-nom from Tony and Lourdes, you must be doing something right. Looks like they meet the not-a-jerk and has-a-clue test, with excellent content creation thrown in too. Good luck to you, and thank you for your contributions to the encyclopaedia, Chetsford! — Amakuru (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Support - nothing here to worry me, good nomination and answers to questions. Hugsyrup 12:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 13:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Support - based on review. Kierzek (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Support - no concerns here, I think they'd make a good admin. –Davey2010Talk 13:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Support - having encountered Chetsford in the content creation area, and previously, AfC, I've always found them to be knowledgeable, to exhibit sound judgement, and to treat other users with courtesy and respect. A very useful addition, in my estimation. KJP1 (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Support good user who will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 14:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Support It looks like you started 227 pages and only one was deleted. In your 2 years on WP you made liberal use of the thank button: 1,081 times. You made approximately 10,000 edits per year (50% in the main space). I read through your responses to questions, and I also read through the support and the opposition (including provided links). It appears to me that you will be a quality WP:CIVIL administrator. You appear to have the judgement and sense to do what is right, and you also appear to be a candidate who will ask for assistance when needed, and consult policy. Lightburst (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Support Will make a great admin. Willbb234 (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Support As far as I can tell, has the proper temperament, knowledge base, and has the trust of the community. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Support I have no concerns about the candidate. Solid contributions, has clue. Vexations (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Support, a good editor. No worries here - Dumelow (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Support. Good content creation experience, good answers to the questions. I trust the nominator's judgement, too, and I can neither recall nor find any incidents that would be red flags. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Support - what's not to like? AtsmeTalk📧 18:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Support all indications are they they would be a responsible admin.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Support: cogent, intelligent, and calm. No objections. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Support Why not? -FASTILY 20:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Support A solid Editor for sure worthy of Adminship. --Giooo95 (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Support I am aghast to realise I had not already added my name here. Candidate understood my concern, and answered comprehensively. I checked the comment to edit ratio tool, and see that they are a good communicator and getting better. Seems to be unlikely to abuse the tools. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Support, I liked the temperament and answers to the questions. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Support per noms. GABgab 22:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Support Why wouldn't you? TurboSonic (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Support as per noms. Loopy30 (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
SUpport Chetsford requested a copy edit to Herman Vandenburg Ames, which I took up last February, and I was really quite impressed with the thought that went into the article. It was certainly one of the easier articles to copy edit. The consideration that went into crafting the article gives me confidence that Chetsford would apply the same consideration in their actions as an admin. Blackmane (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Support. Chetsford is an excellent contributor whose judgement I trust. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Support per noms. signed, Rosguilltalk 04:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Support Good answers, qualified candidate.– Ammarpad (talk) 05:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Support Good candidate doing useful work. Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Support Impressed with his temperament. – Levivich 06:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Support I am impressed with good amount of work the candidate has shown in short period of time. He has experience in various admin related activities. I believe he will serve the community well with the tools.--DBigXrayᗙ 07:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Support Interacted with Chetsford before and found them to be level-headed, thoughtful, and collegial. I am impressed with their body of work thus far and have no concerns with granting them the tools. Mop on. CThomas3 (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Support per noms. Tolly4bolly 11:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Support Their comment history at ANI seem decent and no real concerns. Getting a nomination from Lourdes is very impressive as well. --Pudeo (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Support Will be fine. Fish+Karate 12:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Support after review. No issues here. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I endorse the nomination statement. – Juliancolton | Talk 13:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Suppport No glaring reasons not to do so, lots of commentary already provided by users whom I trust explicitly. Appears to be a clear net positive. StrikerforceTalk 16:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Support I enjoyed working with Chetsford at Talk:Olivia Jade and appreciate his level-headed guidance for finding consensus.--Jasper Deng(talk) 16:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure about when did I first encounter Chestford for the first time, but this edit made their username familiar to me. I also became familiar with their activity through NPP/R. In brief, they show good knowledge of policies/guidelines, and are civil. I cant recall any red flags, or concerns. Nothing to base an oppose on, and a net positive as long as no red flags. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Support per noms. I don't see any red flags.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Support Absolutely no concerns. I trust Chetsford to make good use of the extra tools, and that's all that's necessary IMHO. --RexxS (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Support - seems to be a sensible and conscientious editor who will make good use of the mop. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Support - I've seen this editor around for a while and I don't think they will abuse the tools. Chestford is a content creator and understand what we are here for in the first place. MX (✉ • ✎) 18:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Support Knowledgeable and articulate. SilkTork (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Support. I've seen Chetsford around and they've always made a positive impression. No concerns. 28bytes (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Support No red flags or reasons to oppose. Seems like a net positive to the project as an administrator. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 14:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Support -- I'll give a standard Fastily Why not? -- Dolotta (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Support - No red flags or problems that can be seen. Seems like a sensible choice. - SchroCat (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Support - No issues with user. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Support - Support per noms, answers to questions, history of highly positive contributions, and with the easy assumption that candidate will take on board Boz's neutral comment. 78.26(spin me / revolutions) 21:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Support. How have I not already crossed paths with this editor? But everything that I see here, I like. Very articulate, and plenty of appropriate experience. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Support. The answers to the questions are clear-headed in the way I want an admin to be, and from what I've seen checking their contributions and stats I'm generally very impressed. Slight shame that he votes delete so often at AfD and is less accurate when he does so than otherwise, but his judgement seems strong even then and I would fully trust him with the tools. › Morteetalk 00:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Support. Yes, indeed. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Support per noms and user talk archive 8 and 18. The only downside is that there seems to be no downside. — Ched : ? — 05:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Support Support per nomination, positive candidate.--Nahal(T) 09:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Support. I've seen Chetsford around DYK numerous times. In all of these instances, I've observed that he has the right demeanor when working with other editors, and is a prolific content contributor as well. epicgenius (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Support – Highly-qualified, experienced candidate, per other experienced editors above. I have no concerns that they will abuse the tools. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Support - good candidate. JohnThorne (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Support: I have had good interactions with the candidate through their content work, which has shown me they are level headed and committed to improving the encyclopedia. I believe that they will be a good addition the admin corps. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Support. Reviewing the grounds for opposition, I see no merit at all – just a candidate engaging in the business of editing Wikipedia and providing a view to other volunteers. I actually think the candidate comes across very well in much of what I read. And this is a theme that I see elsewhere with Chetsford, so I would be happy to see them provided a mop. AGK ■ 14:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Support An excellent candidate. Thanks for stepping forward to help the encylopedia in new ways. Cullen328Let's discuss it 17:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Support Seems like a good candidate. ~Awilley (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Support (moved from oppose) While I have some minor concerns, as I would probably have with anybody, and on review Chetsford is on net an extremely strong candidate most unlikely to abuse the tools and I believe it is fully appropriate and beneficial to Wikipedia that Chetsford be granted adminship. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Support I trust Tony's judgement and I see quite a few other support votes from people I know and whose judgements I trust. We need more Admins and Chetsford looks like an excellent fit. Doug Wellertalk 10:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Support – I endorse the nominators' statements. – bradv🍁 12:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
(Switched to Neutral) Oppose, although regretfully; based on both my past and recent experience with this editor, I have concerns about his judgment and sincerity. I do not like to oppose editors with whom I have philosophical disagreements, unless I feel there are behavioral concerns as well. (For TL;DR skip to my summation in the last paragraph.)
Most recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dream Pod 9, for example, in the section after the AFD's relisting, while he argued that his significant AFD activity in the area of tabletop RPGs was "certainly not personal nor does it represent more stringent standards being applied to the topic of fantasy role play", I challenged him on this assertion. His reply included "I'm actively involved in WP and specifically seek out articles other editors have slapped refimprove tags on so as to either improve or, if not possible after my best efforts, AfD. It just happens a huge percentage of articles I come across are RPG stubs. The situation is so acute that it is almost impossible to avoid." I saw no evidence that he had made any attempts to improve any articles in the topic area in question, and challenged his assertion of RPG stubs being "almost impossible to avoid", by noting that per Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games/Article alerts/Archive his name appeared as having started 36 AFDs between Aug 13 2018 to Nov 26 2018, and then absolutely nothing at all until June 24 of this year when he started up again; that date is significant in that it occurred right after he declined an AFC draft which I submitted on behalf of a new user on Xanathar's Guide to Everything (although after the new user improved the article further and Chetsford did accept it on June 24). After he reviewed that AFC, he immediately resumed his AFD activity in the subject area with 14 more AFDs to date; I found it hard to believe that it could simply be a coincidence that we have two time periods of heavy activity, with several months in between, and felt it likely that seeing my name again on the AFC reminded him of "unfinished business", and I found it difficult to believe that he just happened to come across this "huge percentage of articles" in the same area only in these two time periods, rather than actively seeking out RPG articles to delete. Somehow he managed to "avoid" RPG articles for seven months but now found it almost impossible to avoid them? This is why I question his sincerity, as this appears to be an attempt to conceal his motives.
This particularly concerns me because at the DRV for the same article at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 July 16, Chetsford felt the need to point out a statistic about me to the non-admin closer that I "have a unique view that is outside consensus 83.3% of the time" (and then suggested that I not get personal), which reminded me of past encounters where he had previously touted his own percentage on AFD and disparaged mine (which his co-nominator notes above is just a number), and while he stated that User:Chetsford/GameAFD was being kept ostensibly as a metric for his own self-improvement, that page seems to me to be more like a "scorecard" of trying to keep his game-related AFD "success" rate at the same level of his AFDs in other areas.
But in case my concerns over his judgement are more easily dismissable (and I would note that as I wrote this, questions concerning the DP9 AFD were added above by another user), you may examine a few recent situations with other users. At this thread on his talk page a rejected AFC draft by an experienced user resulted in little more than a clipped response from Chetsford, who closed off the discussion with "There's nothing more I can do for you. Best of luck." and shortly thereafter, another uninvolved editor simply moved the article to mainspace and added additional easily-found sources. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Holian when he stated that if the subject of the article had reviews of his books "in the New York Review of Books or Le Nouveau Magazine Littéraire or similar publications" he would withdraw his nomination, a fellow editor agreeing with his delete nomination challenged his assertion by noting that "WP:NAUTHOR isn't even that strict - it just needs to be non-self-published/peer-edited reviews."
I want to sum up by saying that, although my encounters with Chetsford have not always been positive (and I am sure both of us have regrets about things we said to each other) that as a user with a two-year record, he does still have things to learn, and I do believe my concerns about his judgement are not trivial; perhaps more time and experience interacting with other editors to learn why they contribute the way they do will make him a better candidate for admin, and I doubt I would oppose him a second time. I am particularly concerned that applying stricter-than-normal standards on NPP and AFC will drive away new users and frustrate experienced ones, and if he becomes involved in closes at AFD this stricter approach will result in many challenges whereas a more sympathetic approach will result in the sort of collaboration every area of Wikipedia needs more of. BOZ (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@Boz: - your oppose may be important, but on behalf of the RfA populace, I beg you to add some paragraph breaks. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
LOL, my apologies, it is a bit bulkier than I thought... Consider it fixed. BOZ (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
(Switched to Support) Oppose, per answer to Q3 and relation to over interactions in February 2019 and follow ons. Concerns about judgement. And perhaps have similar feelings to those in currently voting neutral. But ... I've come to this discussion and there's been no chance for the answering of the question I've set. Against that does a lot of good work I note from time to time and if this voting was going borderline I might choose to swing it the other way. Likely to improve in time and I can be a pretty awkward customer.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Still even you must admit the candidate is a net positive??? - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
In all events I am and have always been as confident I can be of anyone he will not abuse the tools (certainly not seriously but anyone can make mistakes). Only I am perfect. I concur at the minimum at least generally with his comments about (declared) paid editors. I have minor concerns which may be unwarranted may be slightly too certain of own judgement and may be slightly too quick to dive at times and will may sometimes gloss over problems (Q3) but I may wrong in this call and certainly well insufficient to bar Chetsford from adminship. 08:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per the incident I assume is being alluded to in Q4 (archived here). My impression of Chetsford's conduct in that interaction was that they were on a mission to purge Wikipedia of coverage of tabletop roleplaying games because they don't care for them, and when called out on their lack of understanding of that topic they went out of their way to offend its enthusiasts, saying acutely offensive things denigrating the art embedded in RPG works (see my comment here). Rather than admit they didn't understand or appreciate the significance of the subject matter they just continued making polite but nonetheless offensive statements. I suggested at that time that they should perhaps consider not doing things that could be reasonably construed as deliberately offensive () but it seems (per their answer to Q4) they've trivialized the magnitude of this incident, and per Boz's extensive comments above it seems to be an ongoing issue. This is an editor who I am not confident will be an impartial administrator, and more importantly I am not confident they won't abuse the tools to filter content they just don't like. I realize it's too late in the process for my comments to have any effect on the outcome of this discussion and others who were involved in the incident have already commented in the neutral section, so please take my comments as advice. If you carry this attitude into your activities as an administrator, you will have many more people coming down on you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I tangled with Chetsford during the RPG AfD kerfuffle a fair bit. While I stand by my assertion that their suggestion that games cannot be art and should instead be treated as instructional manuals was inaccurate, this only means that I'm not likely to invite them to a board game night in my kitchen; that has no relevance on their abilities as an admin. However I suspected (and apparently correctly so) that this particular issue would come up if they put up an RfA. My interaction with Chetsford outside of that one unfortunate incident is nonexistent, and I don't feel properly qualified to state whether they'd be a good admin or not. However I don't think this one incident should block them if it is the only objection. Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
This Neutral did make me chuckle (it does make Chetsford not sound great fun at parties) Nosebagbear (talk)
Come over to my house, we're going to read instructions manuals and then move blank discs of cardboard around a larger blank square of cardboard. ;) (But only if it's prototype night.) Simonm223 (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
And here I was sitting with my deck of Rembrandts, Degas, Monets, thinking of the best combos Nosebagbear (talk)
Neutral, after discussing with Lourdes and reviewing the nomination and responses. I have to admit that I do not know the Chetsford that over 100 members of the community are supporting nearly-unanimously; the Chetsford that I have encountered seems like a completely different person. That said, I am willing to set my concerns aside as a sign of good faith that there is more to him than what I have seen. My hope remains that he will commit himself to learning to empathize with people who contribute differently than he does, to understand why they have different views about content, and to do his best to never have the level of interaction with any other editors that led me to feel the way I came to feel. I do not believe he will abuse the tools, and I hope I will be proven wrong in the assessment of his sincerity and judgment that I have built over the past year of encounters with him. BOZ (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. What I told you stands and I absolutely respect and honour your viewpoints. Warmly, Lourdes 08:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
You are very welcome, and thank you! It's not easy to empathize with both sides of a dispute, but you have done well. :) BOZ (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.