Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DeltaQuad 2

DeltaQuad

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (81/9/2); Scheduled to end 02:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) – This is a little strange for me. You see, around ten months ago, I opposed this candidate. In the ten months since DeltaQuad was last here, he's picked up a lot of seasoning. The daily grind of clerking the SPI casepages is an environment where experience is gained in spades. He has coded and operates the current iteration of the UAA reporting bot, which identifies potentially problematic usernames as they are created. As much as I like my admin candidates to have extensive experience with content (and DQ does have some), adminship boils down to a lot of boring work that must get done, and making DeltaQuad an admin will be of great help in getting the maintenance tasks that he has chosen to throw himself into.

I've seen a lot of DeltaQuad since his last nomination. A lot of the attitude I like to see from admins, intelligent, yet willing to listen and learn. Willingness to realise when he's made a mistake and to correct it. His work at SPI is good, and in my opinion, it's time he passed an RFA. I hope you'll agree. Courcelles 21:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Co-nomination

DeltaQuad, in my opinion, is one of Wikipedia's finest editors. DeltaQuad is a SPI clerk, which already shows the ability to be trusted. He has created some content, previously worked in WP:AFC, and has reviewed two GA candidates—TuneUp Utilities and Minneapolis wireless internet network. DQ is also an operator on some internet-relay chat wikipedia channels, including #wikipedia-en. This is something not given out lightly; most admins don't even have it! Lastly, he is an account creator^[1] and has worked with UAA a lot (and has even made a bot), both showing knowledge of the username policy. I believe DeltaQaud would be a good admin, and I hope you agree with me. —GFOLEY FOUR— 00:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC) ^{Revised at 02:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)}

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thanks Courcelles and Gfoley Four for the nomination. -- DQ (t) (e)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: I intend to be most active (as my contributions show) at Sockpuppet investigations. This is the core of where I have been and have made multiple administrative requests. I also intend to stop by Usernames for administrator attention especially with my bot posting suspicious usernames. Furthermore, Administrator Intervention Against Vandalism would be another spot to stop, as I do still do anti vandalism work every so often. Lastly patrolling the Open Proxy noticeboard which is only actively patrolled by one admin. -- DQ (t) (e)

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

A: My admin recommendations at SPI and the archiving. That way admins can just look over, verify what I have said, and take action. The archival is a key part of SPI and is why my edit count is so high in that namespace. Reviewing each of the cases I archive for errors or things missed is a key part of it, but also making sure that the case thread stays clear for new cases and it doesn't become a mile long list of socks. -- DQ (t) (e)

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: Content disputes, not really. Conflicts, some, minor. The stress of knowing if the user you see on the screen is a sockpuppet, yes. It's sometimes really hard to know if you have a sock. I deal with that by talking with other admins/users about it and sometimes, just walking away and coming back to look at it later. That's the way I plan to do the same in the future. -- DQ (t) (e)

Additional question from NuclearWarfare

4. What have you done in the past 9 months to assuage the concerns of those who had opposed your previous RFA?

A: I have changed my whole attitude towards RfA, I don't see it as something I need to have, and if I were to fail at this point, I would just go right back to where I was and continue to make Wikipedia a better place. Also, being at SPI, I have come across the policies more frequently and made my recommendation around those. 9 months ago, I was just getting into SPI and still did not have enough of a clue. I've also talked to more admins and asked them about the actions that they have taken and that has helped to know that I need to investigate things more on my own before asking an admin to intervene into a matter. Pointillist raised a very fair oppose at my last RfA, that I was capitalizing on how good I thought I was or could be. Right now, I know I have weak points, and it's who I am. We all have our points. But I'm now saying that I'm human (really? :P) and I make mistakes. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Colonel Warden

5. How would you deal with a circumstantial case such as this?

A: See my comments on the case page. -- DQ (t) (e)

Additional questions from Σ

6. If you were engaged in a long content dispute with another editor, and they started cursing suddenly, what would you do?

A: If they were in violation of No personal attacks, then I would take it to ANI as I would be WP:INVOLVED. If it did not fall into that then i would just keep going in a civil but to the point discussion to hopefully resolve the issues. -- DQ (t) (e)

7. Can vandals be completely rehabilitated? Or is it "Once blocked, always watched"?

A: There are some vandals who can be rehabilitated. I'm not to familiar with the phrase there, but it is rare for people like prolific socks to come back from a life of multiple account abuse to clean good Wikipedia contributor. It's a weighing of the scales and where block are only for the protection of Wikipedia (also know as preventative), not punitive. If I do ever do an unblock on a vandal, I probably wouldn't do it without talking with the admin who made it, being sure the user is willing to contribute in a positive way, and watching their edits once I unblocked. -- DQ (t) (e)

Additional question from Barong

8. I'm currently on WP:A/R/CL and WP:ANI, as well as User talk:Newyorkbrad. As a potential admin, I'd like to hear your comments regarding all of that. Sincerely, Barong 06:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC) (fka, Jack Merridew, Moby Dick, Davenbelle, a few others, and a few IPs)

A: This seems like a very in depth issue, and I haven't seen anything in particular about it before, so I'm going to take some time to look at it first before I respond. -- DQ (t) (e)

It is; it goes back to early 2005. Sincerely, Barong 12:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have taken a look into the current affairs going on. I am not going to look back over the previous disputes as 1) That's excessively long 2) Were talking about the here and now. Moving on. Your use of multiple signatures is disruptive and some of your comments are not civil. That being said though, the restrictions placed on you a while ago, should be reconsidered. I am not willing to comment on the possible resolutions that ArbCom is looking into. Since were talking about my adminship possibility, which is why were here, if I became an admin, as an independent admin (not on behalf of the community) I would not take any action against you at this time, and when I say on behalf of the community I am talking about community placed restrictions and/or ban if it comes to that. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Aiken drum

9. In answer #2, most people discuss their best contributions to articles, which is the purpose of why we're here. You have not so could you please outline your best article work?

A: Not totally sure if I have understood your question, but I'll take a stab at it. I do admit, my article contributions are low in number, partly because SPI cases, when archiving, take up two edits, and in about a 2-3 day period, you can collect ~40 SPIs ready to archive, so that's 80 edits. That being said, it's still a low number. I believe my best work is my most recent Good Article reviews, because it was something I both failed on originally, and I felt like I had an understanding of the criterion. So I contributed only in articles (Good Article wise) that I know a lot about. I find it harder than most to keep the train of thought going on and on and on. I make my point and then I move on. Sometimes, which there are clear examples in my edits, where I break thought mid sentence and it doesn't make sense. (You could probably find one in this RfA) I'm not saying I am exempt from editing articles, but I do say let me show you what I am good at. -- DQ (t) (e)

Clear up: For actual articles, my improvements to my currently nominated GA Air India Express Flight 812, although I was not the key contributor, were some of my best. It still needed a copy edit after, but that is the most recent best work I have done article wise. -- DQ (t) (e) 20:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Keepscases

10. Do you believe people can fall in love on Wikipedia? Why or why not?

A: There are two different kinds of love, one of them the world classifies incorrectly as obsession. Yes, people can be obsessed with Wikipedia, I see them everyday at SPI. I don't really know how else to answer this question. -- DQ (t) (e)

You may have misunderstood my question. What I meant was, can two editors fall in love with one another during normal Wikipedia behavior. Keepscases (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah sorry, thought that said with Wikipedia. It's possible, User:Pathoschild and User:Shanel are in love according to their userpages, but I don't really feel comfortable throwing my own opinion in. -- DQ (t) (e) 21:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Lambanog

11. Why are you here on Wikipedia? What do you get out of it? Why work in SPI? What is your motivation?

A: I'm in all of this because I like Wikipedia being an open free (trying to be) accurate resource. I think I will just leave it at that. -- DQ (t) (e)

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/MWOAP
• Requests for adminship/DeltaQuad
• Requests for adminship/DeltaQuad 2

• Links for DeltaQuad: DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for DeltaQuad can be found here.
• Alternate Account Disclosure -- DQ (t) (e) 19:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• In response to Q9, Q2 doesn't state "best article contributions", but rather "best contributions to Wikipedia", which ISN'T strictly limited to articles.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 11:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Never said it did. I said most people choose to write about their article work there. AD 11:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. I'm a weak content contributor, and I'll be the first to admit it, but in my RfA I was sure to mention the article work I'd done, even though most of my contributions were (and still are) in non-article space. I think most people tend to put something in there about article work. -- Atama頭 18:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Barong's question seems distinctly unfair to ask of someone going through RFA... it's a long, complex issue and I can't see why the dispute is being brought here! --Errant ^(chat!) 15:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• Editing stats posted to talk. Baseball Watcher 02:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Absolutely. Baseball Watcher 02:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
2. Support...as if there was any question remaining. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
3. Support, with a clichéd "thought he was an admin already" tossed in. Happened to notice a typo on one of his bot's messages the other day and perused his talk page archives after leaving a message; the talk page contents showed a helpful, clueful and responsive editor. 28bytes (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
4. Support, with feelings similar to Courcelles'. Prodego ^talk 02:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
5. Support As co-nom. —GFOLEY FOUR— 02:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
6. I trust Courcelles's judgement. StrPby (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
7. Support - Candidate seem knowledgeable, cluefull and intelligent of Wikipedia policies. Came across him once when he was archiving an SPI case. mauchoeagle _(c) 02:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
8. Support, absolutely great candidate. Mature, pleasant to interact with, experienced, knowledgable, etc - and all with an excellent track record. No problems here. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
9. Support Though I opposed your first RFA, I can find nothing that stands out in this one that would make me oppose a second time.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 03:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
10. Support – It's about time :) Airplaneman ✈ 03:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
11. Was somewhat against the RfA second time around, but after working with them at SPI for quite a long time, I'm getting sick of having to clean up with blocks after tagging :). Highly clueful user. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
12. Support Editor is helpful and mature and has common sense. --NellieBly (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
13. Absolutely. T. Canens (talk) 05:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
14. Support Work on SPI looks sound and I know from my experience on ACC that they are active with nearly 500 accounts created, with 11,000+ edits 2/3 of which are manual I see no reason why they can't have my support. Jamietw (talk) 05:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
15. Support No concerns at all. Seems like an obvious support to me! – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 06:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
16. Support Seen the editor around, with intelligent comments placed before the signature. The nominators have done an excellent job here, explaining your technical skills; we all have our strengths and weaknesses and whilst maybe a smidge light on content for some (not me) this in no way prevents you getting the extra tools. Pedro :  Chat  06:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
17. Support - No concerns at all. Seems like a very capable and knowledgable user. Orphan Wiki 09:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
18. Support swayed last time, only a better position this time Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
19. Support Think he can handle the mop and we can use the help! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 10:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
20. Strong Support I have worked extensively with DQ through Abuse Response and he has been more than willing to teach me the basics of SPI on IRC. A great, helpful user, DQ would definitely benefit the project with the mop and bucket. Regards, MacMed^talk_stalk 11:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
21. Strong Support - great "menial worker", would really benefit from having the tools. - filelakeshoe 12:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
22. Support - I see absolutely nothing that would indicate that DQ would be anything other than a net positive. GB fan (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
23. Support Of course. TNXMan 14:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
24. I nominated the last time, and my opinion hasn't changed. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 14:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
25. Strong Support - Absolutely. - Mlpearc powwow 15:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
26. Support - Have seen the candidate's excellent work over at SPI and remember when I was shocked to discover he wasn't an admin yet. Some concerns over inexperience with detecting open proxies, where the candidate has expressed a desire to work eventually, but nothing that can't be remedied.... Sailsbystars (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
27. Support, per DQ's (and DQ's bot's) work at UAA. He seems a sensible chap to me and he has ample experience in the areas he wants to work in. If my word is not neough, I think it's telling that several SPI and UAA regular admins are above me in this column. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
28. Support oustanding work Pass a Method talk 16:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
29. Support The candidate's work as an SPI clerk has gone a long way toward rectifying the concerns of inexperience cited by the opposers in the last RFA.--Hokeman (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
30. Support - I see DQ around a lot now which I didn't before I got the mop myself. Being nominated by a participant whose oppose !vote last time caused a lot of pile-ons (including mine), I'll have to follow Courcelles again and this time pile on with support. The excellent work at SPI more than adequately compensates for any claims of too little content work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
31. Support. I've not seen anything to worry about. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
32. Support Still no reason to think theyll misuse the tools. Very nice Q4 answer, restrained confidence and humility is the badge of true competence. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
33. Support - Frankly, DQ rocks and I'd love to see them with the tools. DeltaQuadBot is invaluable at UAA, and DQ's efforts at SPI are much-needed. This is a total no-brainer for me. -- Atama頭 18:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
34. Support I personally like content contributions for RFA candidates with the exception of vandal warriors. DQ works in the vital role of a SPI clerk, thus that role outweighs my concerns over lack of content. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
35. Support I can find no reason why he shouldn't get the mop. Good luck. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 19:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
36. Support - supported last time around, happy to support again. Robofish (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
37. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
38. Support. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
39. Support I supported last time. I see no reason to alter that trend ;)--White Shadows ^{Stuck in square one} 20:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
40. Support – I trust DQ with the mop. —mc10 (t/c) 21:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
41. Support - Can be useful to the project with the mop and I trust that he won't abuse it, so whynot James of UR (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
42. Does a lot of good work. ceranthor 22:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
43. Support He'd not abuse the tools and it'd help with his work at SPI and Abuse Response, he's definitely improved since his last RfA. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:47am • 23:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
44. Support - Absolutely! - Rich(MTCD)^{Talk Page} 01:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
45. Support - Already a de facto Administrator, it would seem. What's to discuss? Carrite (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
46. How could I not? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
47. Support —DoRD (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
48. Support, answers work for me. --Σ _☭^★ 03:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
49. Support I have seen many good requests for administrator attention from this candidate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
50. Support An undeniable support as he has done so much for the project. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
51. Support, changed from "Reluctant oppose" – it's a pity that DeltaQuad does not participate much in the main namespace. However, trust from others is what an admin need, and here it is the case, particularly with more than 50 in support and (now) 0 opposes. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 06:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
52. Weak support. Lacking content creation, but otherwise good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
53. Support, great user. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
54. Support. Fully agree with the nominators' statements. -- œ^™ 11:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
55. Support user does some very useful bot work and from my experience has the makings of a fine admin. ϢereSpielChequers 12:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
56. —Кузьма^討論 13:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
57. Support User had my support last time and still has it. Nothing wrong here. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
58. Support - I almost supported last time and since then the candidate has had a good record. Yes article contributions are nice, but this editor has benefited the project elsewhere. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 13:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
59. Support strong nomination statements ("one of Wikipedia's finest editors" perhaps overly strong). No concerns Jebus989^✰ 14:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
60. Support TBloemink (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
61. Support Helpful, clueful, good knowledge of policy, has common sense. No concerns. Lack of major content does not bother me in this specific case, because I've seen considerable evidence that xe is a definite positive asset to the project.  Chzz  ►  15:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
62. Strong Support Should have been an admin a few months ago IMHO :D [stwalkerster|talk] 15:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
63. Support, no reason to believe there will be problems with DQ using the tools. Just watch out for the dratted Borg... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

    Yep. :) Maybe I will use some of that 23rd (I think) century technology to help me out or maybe the doctor's photonic cannon. :P -- DQ (t) (e) 16:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

64. Support, with another administrator nominating I believe it is the right time! Intoronto1125TalkContributions 16:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
65. Support. Absolutely, there would be no point in opposing. Simply an outsanding candidate, ready to recieve the mop. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 21:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
66. Weak support because of testimony from experienced, respected editors about maturity and capability and contributions. My concerns are about age, that we should require a pledge that administrators be 18 (which is not policy and probably opposed by the majority), and about the very few contributions of mostly short sentences to articles.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
67. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
68. Support I'm somewhat concerned about the points made by Skomorokh down below, but with the support the candidate has received from some very respected and thoughtful editors (including the noms) I don't think that is enough to not support this otherwise well qualified candidate. Monty₈₄₅ 01:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
69. Support - Thanks for volunteering your further qualified support of Wikipedia. An absolute net positive to the project. My76Strat (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
70. Support, no evidence that user would abuse the tools. Extensive mainspace contributions, while desirable, in my view should in no way be considered a prerequisite for the admin bit. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC).
71. Support moved from neutral I was thinking about this for a bit, and I feel that DeltaQuad's SPI contributions outweigh his content work. I will support this user's quest for adminship, as long as he takes the proper precautions as an administrator. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
72. Support Chester Markel (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
73. Support Seems capable. Swarm ^X 18:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
74. Support Solid candidate. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 01:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
75. Support Fully qualified and technically capable contributor, has shown his dedication to the project and is unlikely to abuse the tools. Acather96 (talk) 04:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
76. Support More work on SPI would be good, lots of gnome work is good, and I see no reason to suspect you'll use the tools improperly -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
77. Support. Well-grounded and experienced user with nothing to indicate potential for misuse of tools. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
78. Support He'll be fine. WayneSlam 23:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
79. Thought he was an admin already :P Diego Grez (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
80. Support WP needs to be a collection of "all the talents", administrators need to be drawn from from both content and non-content areas. Mtking (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
81. Support Don't feel entirely like dancing in the streets about the content situation but DeltaQuad has demonstrated enough of the other necessary admirable qualities to have outmuscled (geddit?) any whingeing I might have started on. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

Reluctant oppose – This is my first oppose, and I know I'm going to cop some criticism for my comment here, but I'm concerned with your creative content work. Since your last RFA, when this point was also raised, your main namespace edit percentage has dropped from 30% to 20%. At the same time, "user talk" and "Wikipedia" edits have jumped. I do recognise your fantastic work (vandal fighting and others) as evident through the number of nominators of this RFA nomination, but I think the main objective on Wikipedia is to contribute to articles. I think you would be an ideal admin if your main namespace edit percentage was in the 30–40% range, and I certainly would have voted for you. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 11:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I don't see any reason you should cop any criticism for your oppose. It's an opinion based on facts and presented constructively. Pedro :  Chat  11:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

People may think that Wikipedians are volunteers and that they can contribute at whatever field they want, like the previous RFA. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 11:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me if I've misunderstood, but what you seem to be saying is that the quantity of his edits and the shape they make on a pie chart is more important than the quality of them. I can kind of understand opposition based on lack of content work, but I think the pie chart is irrelevant to somebody's suitability to ba an admin. My pie chart tells me that a mere 29% of my eits are to the mainspace, and yet I've almost single-handedly written a featured article and eight GAs, but, by the logic you're employing, that counts for less becuase of the 4,000+ block notices I've placed on user talk pages or the 3,000 queries I've answered on my talk page. I don't wish to berate you, but if the concentration of edits per namespace is the only thing prompting you to oppose, you should seriously reconsider your oppose, because adminship by definition requires a lot of edits to the project and user talk namespaces, much as we would all like to spend 99% of our time in the mainspace. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi HJ. Have you got the link to the policy or guideline that states (defines in your words) adminship [...] requires a lot of edits to the project and user talk namespaces. Thanks in advance. Pedro :  Chat  19:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This would do. :) Prodego ^talk 19:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah - Touche. :) Pedro :  Chat  20:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Second that request. Being an admin simply means you've had the "Administrator" button checked on your userrights profile. All in all though, the namespace percentage thing is silly for all purposes other than "Oh, cool, I didn't know I had x edits in y-space". You can write a featured article in one article (I've certainly done it in 10 or less), and then completely bury that edit with a talk page edit to add the nomination tag, 20 projectspace edits to create the nomination, transclude it, and respond to comments, and 10 user talk edits following up with reviewers. Juliancolton (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I only have 27% of my edits in the mainspace. I don't think that's unusual for an admin (maybe it is). But by the standards of this oppose I shouldn't be an admin. (Not that I take this oppose personally or anything, I'm just making a point.) My question to Sp33dyphil is this; is it better to have 5,000 edits to main article space, out of 25,000 total edits to the encyclopedia, at 20%? Or to have 2,500 edits to the main article space, out of a total of 5,000 edits to the encyclopedia, at a whopping 50%? Which shows more of a contribution to articles? -- Atama頭 20:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll clarify: anybody who works behind the scenes, doing jobs typically associated with adminning, is oging to rack up a lot of edits to the project space and the user talk space. I block a lot of vandals, and because policy says (rightly or worngly, I'm undecided) I have to notify them, that's a user talk edit for every block, which is in the thousands. Similarly, every time I answer a page protection request, that's at least one edit to the project space. My point is that there is so much more to it than the pie chart. A handful of edits to the mainspace might take many times longer than dozens to the project space by the nature of the edits most often made in the project space (ie discussions). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I really can't engage and reply to your farcical commentary anymore HJ - just because you've been reconfirmed doesn't grant you super-user staus mate. If you can't understand why I can't engage (perhaps a re-read of your bizarre comments in the cold light of day may help you) then so be it. Either way, this is needless RFA disruption (much like your ego-smooth last week). Pedro :  Chat  21:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the issue here. Sp33dyphil says he wants to see more mainspace edits and HJ Mitchell says that more should be considered. I don't understand why any policy is necessary for people to express opinions, regardless of whether in support or opposition to this candidate. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I indented the oppose !vote since Sp33dyphil is now in support. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 5:13pm • 07:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

1. Oppose. User appears to be very useful to the project as a gnome and is prepared to do (and has done) a lot of mechanical edits. I am quite comfortable with this user operating in a fixed area which requires little judgement, clue or knowledge of policies/guidelines, such as reverting obvious vandalism or archiving closed SPI cases. However I see little work in areas which do require judgement, and when there is such work, the evidence is that judgement is very poor, such as Talk:Minneapolis wireless internet network/GA1, done within the past few days. I feel the user may make mistakes with the additional tools of an admin. I was alerted initially by User:DeltaQuad/Admin/altacc, which the user has linked to from this RfA. The statement about IP accounts is not clear. And the information about WHF accounts at the bottom of the page is either deceptive or simply wrong - either way, not impressive for an admin candidate. I feel there is not enough evidence in the recent edits of this user displaying sound judgement, intelligence, and knowledge of our guidelines to support, and what evidence I have found is negative. Ideally, I'd like to see a period of the user displaying sound judgement and independent knowledge of Wikipedia procedures and guidelines. However, as this RfA stands there are over 50 supports, and just my oppose, so this user is going to become an admin. I wish them luck, and would ask them to move slowly, and ask for advice when initially using the tools. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 09:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

   I can't figure out what the problems are with either of those links, could you explain further? Andrevan@ 19:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

   DeltaQuad has tidied up a bit. This version shows that he had linked to other websites and termed them WHF sites. The statement at the top regarding editing from IP accounts is not clear. I can work out the meaning, but I would appreciate more WP:Competence in communication skills. By themselves these were not enough to oppose, but when I looked at DeltaQuad's contributions I saw little beyond fairly mechanical edits. Looking at the one recent example where DeltaQuad was using the sort of judgement one would expect of an admin, I found that in the GA review DeltaQuad was asking for "Sourcing: The whole lead is unsourced", and the nominator pointed out that it wasn't needed; then says "WP:FUTURE: "Nonetheless, the firm is making a $1.2 million profit yearly" that's a bit of a guess, no?", and the nom points out that it comes from the source which is specified in WP:FUTURE as acceptable use; then says "WP:HISTMERGE: Your article that you originally had, needs to be merged by an administrator instead of copypaste." when the sole contributor to User:Bobamnertiopsis/articlesandbox was Bobamnertiopsis, and was created in his userspace, so a historymerge was not necessary; and he not only uses templates in the discussion, but asks the nominator to use them - while this is not explicitly discouraged in GA reviews (as it is explicitly discouraged in FAC), it is unhelpful. A series of minor points, but compiling them together along with not finding positive evidence of using independent judgement and knowledge, led to my oppose. I hope that helps. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 08:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

2. Oppose per SilkTork, & lack of content contributions. Only 3 articles with over 10 edits, & top article is just tidying up copyediting. It just isn't enough, imo. Sorry. Johnbod (talk) 04:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

   Lack of content editing hasn't hindered me as an admin. Actually, I wish I'd gotten involved in more admin-type areas before I became an admin to get more experience. I don't see how decent content edits actually helps being an admin. If he wants to be a gnome, backend, cleany-uppy type person, then he can be. That's what he's been. And that's exactly what he'll be continuing as an admin. Just my $0.02. [stwalkerster|talk] 01:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

3. This oppose won't make a lot of difference, but I'd prefer a candidate who did not spend the majority of the time acting like a police officer. Admins should be part of the community, not above or separate from it. There unfortunately are too many admins that barely remember there's an encyclopedia here too. AD 01:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Content contribution to articles just not up there. Unfavorable experiences with admins I have had are not rooted from their lack of good intentions but rather their lack of experience working with articles. I wouldn't be comfortable having the candidate judge a content dispute. Lambanog (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
5. Oppose, though it likely won't make a difference at this point. This candidate's almost complete lack of significant content contribution indicates an unbalanced Wikipedia experience that will be detrimental to making administrative decisions. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
6. Oppose Although I think it's pretty clear that this RfA will pass, I substantially agree with the small group of opposers. DQ has proven that he is proficient in SPI and UAA clerking, but those activities all seem quite mechanical in nature. Like SilkTork, I think that DQ's activities may generally be characterized as beneficial but that they require little considered judgment on his part. The candidate may be well-suited for admin work at SPI, UAA, and AIV, but we have little evidence of how he might act in administrative areas where figuring out how to proceed is less than straightforward and more thoughtful judgment is necessary. (See Q3, where he says that he's never been an editing dispute.) Also (and this is a minor point), I noticed several misspellings and punctuation errors in DQ's responses to the questions, which did not improve my impression of him. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
7. Oppose Q5 was in the candidate's specialist area of SPI but the answer seemed weak. The candidate seems inexperienced in other areas and so lacks the good general experience of the project which is expected of an admin. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
8. Oppose Content concerns -- very little work there (further explanation in struck neutral vote below). Agree with points brought up re: rote edits; nothing wrong with that intrinsically but meatier work should be required to give someone access to these tools. Also, I'm somewhat bothered by the "list of positions I hold on other Wikis" that was deleted. "Hat-chasing" is a real pet peeve of mine, even on a site like Wikipedia, and that's what that list screams to me regardless of whatever rationale is used to dismiss it now. Apologies. – anna 22:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
9. Oppose Not that I would ever agree with Colonel Warden on anything, but on this point he's right. That was a very lame response to Colonel Warden's Question #5, which is critical to SPI's. Also the nominee completely dismissed Question 11. It's not like these questions require 10 page essays, but ignoring them (essentially) is indicative of immaturity. There are a limited number of admins, and I'd prefer one that is extraordinarily knowledgeable about a lot of policy around here. I don't need them to know every arcane thing that pops up, but a good chunk of it. This is a lot of evidence that leads me to conclude that the nominee is just too young/immature for admin tools. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral moving to support I have seen this user interacting at SPI and UAA in a very positive manner, but the content contributions concern me. The two articles that DeltaQuad has written are 227 (disambiguation), which does not adhere to MOS:DAB through the lack of a "227 may refer to:" at the top, and Colmar - Meyenheim Air Base, which is currently tagged for copy editing. I think that the ability to write articles adhering to policies and demonstrating strong writing skills are crucial factors in adminship. However, I am leaning toward support pending others' ideas in this discussion. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 04:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Explain: How is the ability to write an article related to adminship? Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Most admin actions affect either content editors or the content itself. Therefore, some hold that admins should have experience in content areas. You might not agree with that opinion, but it's not exactly a fringe view around here. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really (and it definitely shoudldn't) thought does it. Some admins are needed for specifically content issues - to occasionally judge consensus. But usually that is not related to writing skill. FWIW I agree with the general point that DQ wouldn't really be able to work on content disputes, so really it boils down to whether you'd trust him to stick to the areas he does have ample experience. Any one admin is most likely to end up blocking vandals or protecting pages; but we don't often see demands for significant SPI experience at RFA :) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a perfectly valid concern, admins are going to get called into content disputes and if they have no experience writing an encyclopedia, which is what we're doing here incase you forgot, then they won't be able to resolve them. I'm not letting it stop me supporting DQ because I doubt he would get too involved in content disputes. - filelakeshoe 14:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Note DeltaQuad's last edit to that page was in December 2009. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 06:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Logan does have a good point. I don't agree with the conclusion, of course, given my endorsement of this candidacy. But as a general rule, I believe every administrator should show some competency in article editing. One of the roles that any administrator is likely to be drawn into, whether by choice or happenstance, is a content dispute between editors. Having knowledge of the proper way to produce content is invaluable in such situations. Furthermore, when an administrator has to decide on the fate of content, whether through deletion decisions or move requests or other such matters, an administrator should be able to tell the difference between good and poor content, and having experience in producing content will help there. I don't think having GAs, FACs, or DYKs is necessary (I have none of those either) but having created a reasonable article or two and having been involved in expanding existing articles is important. Finally, any administrator who has never struggled to improve an article will find it more difficult to empathize with editors who are engaged in content disputes or article deletions. Sometimes when I'm trying to explain deletion rationale to an editor after I deleted or am in the process of deleting their work, I'll point to the thousands of edits I've had deleted myself. It helps. -- Atama頭 18:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

1. Leaning Very Strong Oppose Edit: See below. I like DQ, I think he's a great editor, especially as an SPI clerk. At the same time, he was one of the key players in a very large Wikipedia related mess that, thankfully, very few people are aware of. I will decline to elaborate on the nature of this at this time, however several weeks ago DeltaQuad and I had an extended discussion on his role in said mess, and it is from that conversation that I am giving pause here. I will have to track him down a second time and ask him more questions about it before I cast a final vote. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

   "Leaning Very Strong Oppose"? Then being in neutral doesn't make too much sense, does it? Unless you are conflicted between "very strong oppose" and "very strong support" such that they average out. Prodego ^talk 14:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

   I think it's clear that this is here because Sven is uncertain of the candidate's role in the incident in question; that if the charge is true, it merits a very strong oppose, but if false it doesn't merit an oppose at all. Skomorokh 14:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

   As someone familiar with this incident (I think I know what Sven's talking about, at least), I'm just going to ask nicely that no one pries into the details of what happened here, although I will say that DeltaQuad was not the cause of the incident. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 14:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

   Sven, this is the second RfA recently where you've made negative comments about a candidate based on you being somehow privy to private information. Frankly, it smacks of 'look at me, look at me, I know something you don't know. Oh, but I can't tell you, it's private.' To be very blunt: put up or, if you cna't or won't, then shut up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

   Making vague accusations about people and tarnishing their image without backing up with diffs strikes me as dangerously close to a personal attack in my opinion. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

   I wouldn't have put it the way HJM did, but I somewhat agree. Please remember that the point of RfA is to comment on an editor's suitability as a potential administrator in such a way to help a bureaucrat decide whether or not the community would support giving them the bit. An empty "support" or "oppose" is less helpful than one that gives an explanation for the opinion, but it does help. But if you comment to say that you have reservations about the editor because of something they may have done that you can't talk about... What does that accomplish? If you were a bureaucrat trying to decide whether or not the community would accept DQ as an admin, and you're looking for a reason why it wouldn't, would that help you out? Do you think this comment will somehow constructively influence others in this RfA? If you can't talk about it, don't talk about it. You said above, "I will have to track him down a second time and ask him more questions about it before I cast a final vote." I think it would have better for you to track him down and ask him more questions before you said anything. It's not like you need to reserve a seat in this discussion ahead of time. -- Atama頭 18:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

   He's in neutral, who cares? It doesn't affect anybody's camp here. Juliancolton (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

   I am currently speaking to Delta about the incident in question. This might take a while, I will update when possible. As per this whole "borderline attack thing" that was not my intention, and I did state that I don't believe that anyone who saw it would leap to oppose on no public grounds. The alternative would be for me to post details, which for the people that are not knowledgeable on the incident, would be highly prejudicial. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

   It involves ArbCom, I had submitted evidence in the case. The TE bunch were eventually made aware of the details and other events happened. DQ didn't do anything controversial. Sven: DO NOT PUBLISH the information to which you are privy without first consulting ArbCom, this case is highly controversial, —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:45am • 23:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

   OK, can we please stop alluding to this ArbCom incident and especially not bring up things on external sites (TE, etc.)? That was a big enough of a mess already, let's not revive it. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

   That was my only comment on the matter, my position is the same as yours. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:13am • 00:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

   Lots of thank yous to go around here. Thank you HJ Mitchell and Alexandr Dmitri for assuming the worst in me. Thank you Ancient Apparition for believing, despite my statements to the contrary, that I was going to mention the details here, and then mentioning the details yourself. I just have so much respect for all of you right now, I'm gushing.

   On a more serious note, an explanation is in order. Several months ago a user was banned after a private investigation by ArbCom revealed some unseemly things. I, along with DeltaQuad and several other individuals, became involved in the situation as people who knew this user and were surprised and/or angered by the block. As the unseemly details emerged we, one by one, pulled our support for the user. Several individuals did behave badly during the period between when the block was placed and when the support died out. DeltaQuad owned the private IRC room where some of the worst of the behavior took place. After looking over the limited logs that I had been sent months ago (during the incident itself and by a third party), and after speaking to DeltaQuad, I am of the opinion that DeltaQuad did not have an active role in the affair, his private IRC channel was simply convenient space. Although DeltaQuad was an interested party in the affair (by the definition I am using for 'interested party', I would also be an 'interested party', i.e. I was interested in it), and his association with the organization Ancient Apparition alluded to is something I find disagreeable, opposing DeltaQuad over this incident is not something that I feel justified in doing. Had I believed him to be more involved than I believe he was, you can bet that I'd be first in line with the torches and the pitchforks, but he's not. He's not fully innocent, but his only real guilt is by association, and that's not real guilt, it's shitty luck.

   I am, with this factor cleared, considering supporting DQ on the strengths of his SPI clerk work, as I've seen him there and he impresses, but I still need more time to mull over this whole thing. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

2. Leaning oppose at this point. Youthful editors who have shown themselves to be helpful and competent at straightforward clerking tasks in venues like AIV, SPI, UAA have in my experience shown a tendency to get themselves into trouble as admins when they try to intercede in thornier areas. Usually, I judge a candidate's attitude to be far more important than experience, but if there is little substantive experience on record, it becomes quite difficult to judge attitude under pressure. That the candidate cannot cite content disputes they have been involved in or any significant content creation is quite troubling in this light. Further research needed. Skomorokh 12:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

   Skomorokh and everybody else, has any content-inexperienced candidate pledgeD (18:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)) to refrain from using administrative tools against experienced editors, until having gained substantial content experience?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

   If you're asking if anyone has pledged such a thing, I'm not personally aware of such a candidate. Even if they did, it would be widely seen as an empty promise like the rest of "conditional recall"-type vows. Let's say DQ made such a pledge and the argument was put forward that we should trust his judgement, integrity and character. But that gets us right back where we started – an insufficient record on which to make robust character judgements of the candidate. Skomorokh 18:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutral: (moved to oppose) the answer to question 9 doesn't inspire much confidence -- I know that everyone has their strengths and weaknesses, but it's somewhat concerning that you didn't cite a single article you had contributed prose to. Articles are the core of the project; sockpuppet investigations aren't that close to said core (I know this can be argued, so please spare me). That being said, you do seem helpful in other areas, so barring something horrible I'm unaware of, I'm not going to oppose on this point only. – anna 20:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)