Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DeltaQuad

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

DeltaQuad

Final (65/34/12); ended 23:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC) - (X! · talk)  · @0010  ·  23:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) – DeltaQuad has been an active member of the community since last November, and has made almost 7,000 total edits. Although not much of a writer, he is a WikiGnome and has a lot of experience working behind-the-scenes. DeltaQuad does typo fixing, reference fixing, and other various tasks, sometimes manually and sometimes using AWB. DeltaQuad has been a clerk at SPI for about one month now, and he has worked with Articles for creation, the Account Creation Team, and Abuse response for a considerable amount of time. With AfC, DeltaQuad still works with content, and has the chance to work with new users. As a co-coordinator of the Abuse Response Team, he has dealt with numerous abuse cases and helped to expand and develop the project. The team currently has little administrative participation, and having DeltaQuad as an admin would improve the group's efficiency by far. He has also created 175 accounts in working with ACC, and has been entrusted with the accountcreator userright. In addition to this work, he has been a rollbacker for quite some time, has been given reviewer rights, and continues to be involved with fighting vandalism. DeltaQuad also helps users on IRC, in #wikipedia-en-help, which happens to be where I first met him.

Giving DeltaQuad the tools will only help him in his areas of work and will greatly benefit the project. —fetch·comms 03:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Co-nomination: I've worked with DeltaQuad regularly over the past months especially with ACC and the Abuse Response team. While he is obviously not a normal content creator (if you look at his article creations they are breaking articles apart when they needed to be and helping to create articles from Articles for Creation) he is one of those who can help with the "moping" of the project and I don't see any reason to believe he would abuse the tools he would be given and many reasons he could use them to our benefit. He says his focuses would be vandalism and abuse along with SPI and the ACC work he already does, all of those are areas where more admin help could be useful and he has proven that he can be trustworthy. He has shown me that he knows his boundaries and will ask for help and advice when he doesn't know (or just wants a second opinion) and that he knows when action is needed. He has shown a great ability to help where he can, especially with new members, and a desire to see people succeed on wiki. In short: whynot. James (T C) 04:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nominations and would like to thank the two nominators as they have always been around to help me when I need it.

I would like to say again as it has been clearly made by my nominators that I am not a content person. Sorry to disappoint you if you came looking for that. I had my last RfA in January under the name MWOAP, and I was just over one thousand edits then. It was clear as I look back now, that I was nowhere near the right idea of what I was taking on. Thank you to all who helped me get to this point of understanding and I now present my contributions to the community to review. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 22:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Primarily my administrative work would be through WP:SPI & WP:Vandalism. That includes the WP:AIV, WP:AN3, WP:RFPP noticeboards. Also I keep an eye on users from abuse response & Long term abuse to see if any administrator intervention is needed. Also I will be around in #wikipedia-en-help ^connect for any person who would need an admin as I see at time that there are no admins around to help. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 22:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

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

A: I think that all my contributions count for something (some more than others of course). But some of my best contributions I think I have made is to project revamps & vandalism patrol. I am well versed in "Wiki-code" if you know what I mean, which helped me immensely to finish the project. Also, vandalism patrol, if I see a page more than once I will wait on it and stalk it for a few minutes to see if it needs further admin attention. My last "best" contribution is with referencing. Many people find it hard on how to get that box to show, so every so often I help someone with that. I do a patrol of 'Category:Pages With Missing References List' every so often too. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 22:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You said "Many people find it hard on how to get that box to show, so every so often I help someone with that.", and I'm probably being a bit thick, but I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Could you maybe give a diff to an example? This has nothing to do with my !vote, really, I'm just interested in what you meant. (I've always used WikiCitePlus for my referencing, by the way, so if you just mean a more common, alternative way using the Wiki interface/templates, I apologise for the dumb question.) Thanks.  Begoon^talk 04:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I was a bit ambiguous with my definition of people, I was meaning IPs and newly registered users. It's sometimes the simple adding of {{reflist}} or sometimes it's as hard as correcting stuff such as <ref name="this which isn't defined anywhere else" />. My Auto-Wiki Browser edits are specifically for referencing fixes, so there are mostly examples of the easy ones there. As for a diff of the harder one, that's quite a bit of searching as I do about 30 edits per round. If you would like a more detailed explanation of what I mean, feel free to ask. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 04:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No, that's fine, thanks for the response. I think it was "get that box to show" which confused me, but I understand what you meant, now.  Begoon^talk 04:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I haven't had any major issues, and I usually try and take the neutral stand and get opposing sides to talk it out. I don't think I have been directly in an edit dispute, but then again, it could have been minor. I always keep my head cool in situations, and I plan to keep it that way. Always if need be I can step away from the computer for a few minutes if I get too worked up (which hasn't happened before). -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 22:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Courcelles

4. Under what circumstances may an editor revert an article more than three times within a 24-hour period?

A: There are quite a few times that an editor can revert more than three times. Vandalism (Including BLP Vios & Illegal content), Self reverts/own userspace, and actions preformed by banned users (like SPI block related) reverts. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 23:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional (optional) questions from Toddst1:

5. If you came across a statement of intent to commit violence - either self-directed or against or other(s) would you contact law enforcement? Why or why not and if yes, under what circumstances?

A: If it was a direct statement of "Yes, I will do ___" then I would contact a CU and try and make a call to local law enforcement. Also I would talk to oversight and/or revision delete the edit because of it's nature to disrupt Wikipedia. If it was questionable, I would talk around with other users via IRC to see what they would do. It's all situational dependence which sometimes can be more complex than anything to be thought up, but any threat to any user that is serious needs to be reported. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 03:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

6. What question would you have liked to have been asked but weren't?

A: Normally you think this would be left for the end of the RfA. :) But, it would be "Would you be afraid to block someone like an IP such as the one stated in here in the first article". To answer that, I would probably not even notice who the IP was till after, and no I wouldn't be if the vandalism is clear. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 03:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Be sure to read WP:SIP (list of "sensitive" IP addresses for which any blocks must be reported to the Wikipedia Foundation's PR people). Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 04:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know of that list. This IP is actually not on it, but as I said above I would only block on true disruptions and the policy says no long blocks, not no blocks at all. I would still contact the foundation about it if I saw a tag about it though. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 21:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Access Denied

7. Before creating this account, had you ever edited from IPs or other accounts?

A: IP, maybe, if so it was <5 contribs, but even if I wanted to back track I couldn't because I have moved a couple of times since then. User, I CHU'd from MWOAP as stated below, and all other accounts are linked to mine, and are a derivative of one of those two. I have never edited under a different username than those. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 03:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Groomtech

8. Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?

A: I would only do this in the case of contacting other admins on WP:ANI. This would probally only be related to an unblock though. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 21:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to clear this up in the fact that I don't see it as part of the day to day routine of an Administrator. I do see some rare circumstances that would require it. The process that I would employ is first seeing if the situation even deserves it (which most of the time is a no) and then contacting other admins, after all Wikipeida is a community. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 22:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from WFC

9. I appreciate that you're not a content person, and after reflecting on whether my recent opposes have been a bit harsh I do not intend to necessarily hold that against you. That said, could you give an example of an edit where you have shown some knowledge of our policy or guidelines on living people? I'm not looking for evidence that you're versed in the minutiae, but would feel uneasy supporting a candidate that hasn't shown any awareness of it.

A: I know I have done it quite a few times, but the only one I remember was in an error I made. I was reviewing an AFC article. I thought I was handling a living person request, not realizing that the person was long dead. Anyway, to the point, I put it on hold indicating that it needed more sourcing per the BLP policy. It was noted User talk:DeltaQuad/Archives/2010/June in the "Kidding, right?" section. But to try and remember through ~6800 edits which ones were directly BLP related is a challenge. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 21:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Further more, according to my records, I requested a G10 (BLP related) on Ishrat malik. If an administrator could confirm this that would be great. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 23:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You did indeed. You tagged it as vandalism (criterion #G3), rather than as an attack page. I'll leave it up to you and others to discuss the fine details of that. But I confirm that the content was definitely inappropriate for Wikipedia, and deletable on sight. Uncle G (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Bwrs

10. Have you written any Good Articles? By this I mean, has any article you created (including articles created through WP:AFC) eventually become a Good Article, or have you made a substantial contribution towards improving any article, resulting in its promotion to Good Article status?

A: I have not. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 16:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

11. In follow-up to question #5, above: would you make any distinction between statements of intent to commit self-directed violence and statements of intent to commit violence against others? Why or why not?

A: Any statement of intent to threaten the safety of a person is enough to contact law enforcement. When it comes to this kind of stuff, I treat editor(s) like as if they were one of my best friends. So in short, no I do not make those distinctions, but I do forward the info onto law enforcement. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 16:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Question from Tiptoety ^talk

12. First, I know eleven questions are a lot, so I apologize for making it twelve. Second, the question. What are is your opinion on the use of protection during a content dispute?

A: Don't worry, the more the questions, more people understand me. :) Anyway, protection during content disputes should only happen when blocking editors for policy violations won't work. It is not used to punish editors, and users maintaining policy should still be able to edit. Also, if I have been involved in a dispute, I would forward it to another administrator for a decision. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 16:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Again another clarification. For blocking editors in a dispute, they have to be violating policy. I have seen several times where this will not work. I am talking about cases like sock puppetry, personal attacks, incivility. Also usually when we talk about content disputes, they are between established editors. Multiple IP vandals or a huge or sensitive range that is editing one article, would warrant page protection. I hope that clears things up. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 20:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Jayjg

13. Could you point to three articles whose content you feel you are the primary author of? These could be articles you've created, or articles in which most of the content was written by you.

A: I don't have many huge articles or large, but yes I do have some articles that I feel I was a main contributor. Here which I just updated recently, here which I haven't been able to find to many sources for, limiting my content I can put in, and a translation that I have not had a chance to finish yet. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 23:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

A question from HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

14. At the time of writing, this RfA currently stands at 64% support which, unfortunately, means it's unlikely to pass. Is there anything else you want to say?

A: I would like to thank all who have came to vote, and however this turns out, I hope I can still be of use to the community. Also a big thank you to my nominators who took some time to talk about me. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 23:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

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.

---

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

Discussion

• Edit stats posted on talk page. Airplaneman ✈ 23:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• comment Ishrat malik was tagged as a G3.({{db-vandalism}}).©Geni 00:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong Support I've worked with this user in Account Creation and Abuse Response. He's VERY helpful all around. Reading over his answers just makes the support even stronger. Pilif12p :  Yo  23:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Support More than enough gorm demonstrated to wield the mop. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

   Support Looks good. The tools will clearly be useful, and there are no major issues that I can see. Reach Out to the Truth 23:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Switching to neutral Reach Out to the Truth 17:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

3. Support—Only positive interactions. Am confident with them wielding the mop. Airplaneman ✈ 23:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Support No concerns with you as I've seen you around and can attest to your competence and need for the tools. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Stop-beating-the-nom support D: As nom. —fetch·comms 23:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
6. Worked with him in WP:ACC, and have seen him around other places. I think that he will make a great admin. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
7. Pursuing his edit history, he seems level-headed and trustworthy. LK (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
8. Support Good track record in tool-related areas, plenty of experience. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 00:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
9. Support Definitely earned my respect. Very helpful and appropriately qualified. I can only foresee positive results with ratification of this nomination. My76Strat 00:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
10. Support – Great work in ACC; you seem to have a clue here. Since you state you would be working in AIV, I would have usually have liked a few thousand more edits, but since edit count does not matter, and you are a trustworthy editor, I'm fine that you do not have as many edits as some of the other RFA nominees that work in anti-vandalism do. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
11. Support Why not? I don't see anything wrong with this candidate. Not that many edits, but I'd take quality over quantity any day.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 02:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
12. Support Per nominators' statements. No concerns. Bejinhan talks 03:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
13. Strongest Possible Support Access Denied^(t|c|g|d|s) 04:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
14. Weak Support I am comfortable with what I saw in my review. The candidate makes positive contributions, and I don't see the number of edits as a barrier. Satisfies my main RFA criterion, so I support. [noting change to weak support in the light of some valid concerns in votes below, still supporting as I believe candidate appears intelligent enough to take these points on board]  Begoon^talk 04:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
15. Support I feel good about this candidate after reading his answers. Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 05:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
16. Open-minded Support - I suppose I'd like to see more audited content under their belt, but the answers are okay, plus lack of any problems highlighted to date suggests will be more likely than not to be net positive, so let's give it a whirl. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
17. Support - I have looked through this user's contributions, and it is clear that he is level-headed and is able to make use of the tools. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
18. Keegan (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

    Support. At first, I was concerned at his number of edits. Normally, I like my admins to have been active for at least two years. But this is an exception. You've proved yourself on this project, and I wish you the best of luck as an admin. You're like a better version of me! (reverting vandalism, not much content work) Haha :) Best of luck. -- bydand•talk 07:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC) (Sorry, moving to neutral due to oppose issues) -- bydand•talk 16:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

19. Support – looks good; why not? --Leyo 07:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

    Support. Looks like a great candidate to me, with good, well-considered answers to questions - hopefully we might be in for another good month. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC) (Sorry, but I have to move to neutral over issues uncovered by others) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

20. Support - editor has the necessary clue and competence required of an administrator Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
21. Support - a Wikipedian since November, 2007; strong vandal-fighting credentials; cerebral answers--Hokeman (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
22. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
23. Not familiar, but a review of his contributions and trust for the nom convince me that DeltaQuad is a strong candidate. ceranthor 16:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
24. Support I opposed the previous request made as MWOAP back in January, but even then I'd said that this editor was off to a good start and needed some more experience before being ready to be an admin. I see that experience now, and I see evidence of plenty of clue both in the answers to questions above and in contributions made on the encyclopedia. I feel confident supporting this person now. -- Atama頭 18:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
25. Support - fully meets my standards, and, from his user page, appears to be even more of a geek than me. Bearian (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
26. Support nothing wrong here. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
27. Strong support - I meet this editor a few months ago in Account Creations. As a newbie to the process, I frequently called on DeltaQuad for assistance with policy, procedural and general advice query's. He has always been very professional, insightful and courteous. He has a great deal of clue and experience. His coordinating the re-vamping of the Abuse Response team and LTA has been an immense help, his having a mop could greatly enhance those projects and Wikipedia as a whole. As per Co-nom Why not ?. Mlpearc powwow 18:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
28. Support Per my co-nom and general guidelines James (T C) 21:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
29. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 00:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
30. Support because I don't see a good reason not to. Being older and having lots of article content are not good indicators of who'd be a good admin. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
31. Everlasting Support per recent interactions with said person.--Phoon (talk) 06:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
32. Support Excellent candidate. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 06:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
33. Support. I think that this person will make a good admin, has a good attitude and seems like an individual who can be trusted and has a pretty good grasp of policy. I respect people's right to oppose candidates but I have not been convinced by the opposes.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
34. Support The opposers raise some good points, but not ones that to me make you seem unfit for administrative work, and the fact that you've gained the support of an admin whose RfA you've opposed gives me more confidence. —Soap— 09:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
35. Strong Support Extremley helpful user who guided me through the Abuse Response 'system', and would make a great admin. Confident that the user wouldn't make any rash desicions, and wont abuse the tools.Acather96 (talk) 11:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
36. Support the opposes are weak, at best. Right there beginning with oppose #1; 7,000 edits and 9 months of non-disruptive behavior isn't enough to figure out if this editor can be trusted with the tools. Absolutely, shockingly unreal. And we wonder why the pass rates of RfA is at an all time low. Good God people, wake up. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
37. Support I don't believe that I've interacted with this user before, but you seem quite trustworthy. As Hammersoft said above, the opposes are awfully weak. You don't need to pick apart all the minor things DeltaQuad does. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 14:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
38. Support Mostly to counter the opposes, which for the most part, are clutching at straws for reasons to say no. Two years indeed and 7000 edits "not enough" - complete nonsense... some raise valid points, but these are generally nitpicking. I look at the whole picture rather than a couple of isolated incidents. If I never see a single error in a candidate, I'd be more concerned than pleased. Aiken ♫ 14:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

    RfA is not just about being an asset to wikipedia. It's about demonstrating a tendency of good knowledge and good judgement, both of which this candidate has struggled to do. Pass rates are probably at an all time low because the scope for admins to exercise discretion is at an all time high. That trend will most likely change either when someone demonstrates a link between RfA success rates and a problem, or it becomes easier to remove an admin who uses that discretion to their own ends. --WFC-- 17:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

    Admin privileges are no different than they were years ago. Their scope of discretion is unchanged. What has changed are people's impressions of how lily white a person has to be, and how many bazillions of edits they must have before being trusted with something that allows them to do things that any other administrator can undo. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

    The system is designed to discourage administrators from undoing each others' actions though. Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

    I concur with the opinion that 7,000 edits and 2 years is fine, but I would ask this user to say that rather than mentioning the opposers. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

39. Support - per nom. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
40. Support: This user is Canadian and does not use profanity, swearing, cussing, cursing, or expletives. He also likes Star Trek. Res ipsa loquitur - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
41. Support Seems like a good user, with a reasonable (though not great) grasp on policy. Opposing concerns are not persuasive to me. Protonk (talk) 06:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
42. Support - Passes my RfA criteria, which is to summarise, do I trust the candidate? Yes I do. I have read the concerns of the opposition carefully, but I don't find the arguments presented persuasive. The GA reviews seem fine to me, and that is content related work, so I'm not going to criticise DeltaQuad for learning, particularly given he has demonstrated the ability to respond constructively to criticism and knowledge of policy. I don't see anything wrong with DeltaQuad's quality of English, user space, signature, speedy deletions, nor his answers to the questions. Question twelve for instance does not have any red flags to me; blocking users for violating policy such as edit warring is reasonable, though I would possibly emphasise more the option of forgetting blocks and just fully protecting the page, and make the parties discuss it on the talk page. Finally, I had only been here just under ten months, had 4,900 edits, and my article creation count was at ~1 disambiguation page when I ran for adminship, and while I'm biased, after passing I don't remember being incompetent. I struggled at first with some of the admin tasks, but a higher edit count, article count, or time of the project would have made a negligible difference here. CT Cooper · talk 16:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
43. Support - seems reasonably competent and trustworthy, and understand the areas he wishes to work in. The lack of content contribution isn't such a problem for me if the user has demonstrated he can collaborate with others, and I think DeltaQuad has. I'm not saying there are no concerns here - some of the opposers raise good points, e.g. about CSD (only in extreme cases should an article be tagged for deletion less than a minute after creation!). But on balance, I think DeltaQuad would be unlikely to misuse the tools, as long as he takes his time to learn the ropes and keeps a careful eye on what he's doing. Robofish (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
44. Strongly Support - I have encountered DeltaQuad in the past and been impressed by his hard work and good spirit. He has demonstrated that he can be trusted and there is no reason to believe he would abuse administrator rights if he had them. Thparkth (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
45. Strongly Support - DeltaQuad is highly competent, and trustworthy editor. He has put in many hours of hard work in Wikipedia, both working to add and improve articles, as well as working to fight vandalism on Wikipedia. I feel that DQ can be trusted with the super-powers we call Admin/Sysop. DeltaQuad has also put in several hours on the IRC helping both noobies and experienced editors alike. In my personal opinion, DQ has earned his shot at being an admin here on EN-Wikipedia. --ANowlin: talk 22:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
46. Support Will do fine. Pichpich (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
47. Support, and baffled by the level of this opposition to this good editor. No one comes into adminship with perfect skills, and we all learn as we go. The real question is whether this editor can be trusted with the tools, which appears noncontroversial to me. bd2412 T 13:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
48. Am not inclined to support, but I wish to counteract some of the rather harsh oppositions. Stifle (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
49. Per Stifle above. Connormah^talk 19:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
50. Pile on with Connormah, though I largely agree with Mkativerata. I'd planned on remaining neutral but this seems to better reflect my feelings. Hobit (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
51. Theres a net benefit here for addition, Moving from neutral. Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
52. Support. I believe this user has the work ethic and a strong resolve to make a difference in the administrative backlogs. -- œ^™ 01:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
53. ~hugs~ You looked like you could do with some. DQ, while you likely would be most proficient in this position and i am inclined to consider that foremost, i am hereby voting. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 03:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
54. Support - Although I've felt from the beginning DeltaQuad was a good candidate, I took my time in this RfA to mull over all the opposes, and I remain unconvinced. This is still an easy decision for me. Net benefit to the project, IMO. ^Avicenna_sis @ 05:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
55. Support- sure, why not? Reyk _YO! 06:40, 7 August 2010 (UT
56. Support Not everybody likes to write articles, doesn't mean they aren't just as competent, if not more competent to be an administrator.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 20:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

    Why would those who don't like to write articles involve themselves in a project to write an encyclopedia? So that they can lord it over those who do? Answers on a postcard please. Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

    I am one of those people who are involved in the project and I don't like to write articles. I am involved because I think I can help improve and maintain it in other ways. I can do other tasks that need to be done. If there were only people who liked to write articles then all the tasks that people like me do would be left for them to do. That would then reduce the amount of time that they would have to write articles. I think both kinds of editors are important to the long term health of the project. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 02:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

    One of the problems though is that those other tasks include blocking established editors, something that nobody who hasn't been in the trenches of article writing ought to be allowed to do. Malleus Fatuorum 03:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

    Whether or not you agree with the point asked by that question, it is indeed a valid question. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 20:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

    I didn't make a point, I asked a question. Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

    Thanks, fixed the comment... NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 23:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

    Encyclopedias do not just involve writers. They involve copyeditors, fact-checkers, and in the case of Wikipedia, maintainers too. All are valuable roles, and should not be belittled. Aiken ♫ 22:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

    Perhaps. But the original !voter suggested that writers are possibly inferior. Given the statement, Malleus asks a very reasonable question. --WFC-- 22:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

    Writers are not inferior, and to think so would be asinine on my part. I myself am not the best writer around, but I love the purpose that Wikipedia stands for and want to help in any way I can. As User:Aiken drum said, if all we had was article writers, the encyclopedia would fall apart. We obviously need article writers, but people who can help out in other places are no less valuable. The people who work at antivandalism can up and leave if you like, Malleus Fatuorum. Then we would truly be "lording" it over to you.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 16:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

    Your argument makes no sense, not unless you believe that only administrators fight vandalism that is. It's clear that you've never had an article on the main page if that's really what you believe. My objection is to those who only fight vandalism or the like. Malleus Fatuorum 17:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

    And your argument makes no sense to me. We are very obviously of very different opinions. Fair enough. I have never had a page on the main page as I don't have the writing talent, not because I don't want to. It's because of my admitted lack of talent that I busy myself in other ways. I don't know all the policies and article writer would, but I know policies and article writer wouldn't. There needs to be a fine balance. I've written pages, nothing VGA or the like, and I think everybody should write something, but to oppose somebody because they haven't written a VGA is asinine in my opinion. Just reading below, it seems my simple wiki admin colleague Fr33kman feels similar to myself. --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

    Thank you Gordonrox24, my feelings exactly, there is so much else going on. You don't need to have a FA, DYK or GA to be a plus to this project and so muich more helpful with some tools. Mlpearc powwow 02:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

    There's clearly some confusion evident here. I haven't opposed because of a lack of audited contributions at GA or FA, as a cursory glance lower down the page would show, and nor have I ever opposed for that reason, so you can direct your "asinine" barb elsewhere. Malleus Fatuorum 02:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

    And nowhere did I say that you had said that. I am now speaking on en.wikipedia's RFA process in general.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 03:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

57. support —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inka 888 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
58. Support - sure, I got no reason not to support. Good contributor in all ways. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
59. Support I like what I've seen when going through contribs. Behind the scenes admins are very useful to a project. fr33kman ^-simpleWP- 21:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
60. Support - A year ago I doubt I'd have !voted for you, but I see things differently these days. It now comes down to this simple question: Would Wikipedia be a better place if this user had the mop? For me the answer is yes. I respect the opposers but I just don't agree with their reasoning regarding content creation concerns. OlEnglish put it brilliantly above, and it bears repeating: "I believe this user has the work ethic and a strong resolve to make a difference in the administrative backlogs." Bravo! I would ask those sitting on the fence to consider those words. Best wishes, DQ, whichever way this Rfa goes... and if you don't gain consensus, consider trying again before the year is out. Jusdafax 02:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
61. Support From working with this user at abuse response, I know that he can be trusted with the tools. Netalarm^talk 03:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
62. Support because I don't believe DeltaQuad will be going rogue with any admin tools, and because he works in vandalism patrol where admin tools are helpful. On the content work and article creation issue cited below by opposers, I agree that a certain amount of content work is needed to demonstrate understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia, but ability to write "good articles" or score "DYKs" is not. Making several minor improvements over a large number of articles, or keeping articles safe from malicious edits is a fine way of contributing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
63. Support Please try to expand some articles, just one or two but I don't think there are any reasons not to trust you with the mop. Polargeo (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
64. Support You seem to have a solid history at Wikipedia, as stated above, there are seemingly no reasons not to trust you. Best of luck.JDONT (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
65. Support Some valid points made by the opposes, and I do see some things myself but I still feel DeltaQuad would make a fine admin. wiooiw (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Doesn't have enough editing history for me to judge by. Though he seems like a good contributor, doesn't doesn't meet my minimum admin criteria --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 19:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

   With all due respect Kraftlos, having a requirement that says "Has been editing for over 2 years" is a bit much. HJ Mitchell for example has been here for just 13-14 months.....--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 20:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

   It's his long-used criteria, and he does give exceptions where he feels they are due. —fetch·comms 21:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

   He's consistent. Besides, I'm leaning opposed pending an answer to question 9. --WFC-- 21:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

   The only reason (that I can think of) that someone would want less than two years is that they either they themselves became an admin in less than two years or that they are hoping to be an admin and have only been with the project a short time. The tools are for trusted long-term members of the community, not someone who's been on a Wikipedia kick and racked up a few thousand edits in 6-9 months. People should take this more seriously. It should also be noted that I don't meet my own criteria. As far as question 9, I don't mind if people make a mistake or two, that's how you learn. If its a consistent pattern, then we have a problem. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

   Two years is an absurd requirement with no basis in any policy, and your suggestion that people who only vote for people with less are either admins or trying to get adminship is insulting and inaccurate. Most admins had less (some much less) than two years when they passed, and do fine. Such a requirement shows a lack of understanding of the adminship role. I think you need to rethink your criteria, especially when we see you oppose far more than you support. Aiken ♫ 22:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

   How is that insulting or inaccurate? You yourself just said that there were many who passed with less than two years experience. I don't have a lack of understanding of the role of admins, I understand exactly what they're role is here. And yes, I oppose far more than I support. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. Standards where 90% of candidates pass are no standards at all. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

   Erm, you said that people only vote because they're admins or because they want to be - a ridiculous suggestion. It's very clear you misunderstand the purpose of administrators, demonstrated by your absurd criteria - particularly the one demanding two years. When we see you oppose, saying you cannot find anything wrong but they don't have an arbitrary two years experience, that tells us your criteria need some rethinking. This is another reason why having set criteria is a bad thing, as it prevents completely capable people from becoming admins. So no, it's a bad thing that you oppose far more than you support. Aiken ♫ 12:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

   No I'm not saying most people choose those criteria out of self interest. I'm saying that they're too used to the early days when it was much much easier to get the mop. And that's what it is a mop, a pile of more work to do. I don't oppose an otherwise good candidate solely on the years of experience. As shown in my criteria I make exceptions for otherwise qualified candidates. I'm not mechanical with these criteria. I make an open-minded judgment based on those guidelines and a honest evaluation of all facts. Please don't treat me like and idiot, thanks. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

   I'm not treating you like anything. Sorry if you felt that way. Aiken ♫ 15:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

2. Oppose My general impression of you is that you're rather young, and sometimes this gets you in trouble. Of your very few created articles, all but one has some kind of cleanup banner on it. Your GA reviews have always seemed a little strange to me- at Talk:Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey/GA1 you demanded a nominator go to Commons and get an image renamed; something that has no basis in the GA criteria at all. No basis in the FA criteria, either. I've also noticed that every review I've checked has the strange grammatical construction "the reviewer will change that their selfs." Here you summarily passed an article that was de-listed within days. Ultimately, I've never gotten the impression from you that you're sufficiently mature for adminship, but I'll admit this is more of a general impression oppose than anything I can haul out diffs and point to. Courcelles (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC) ETA: The answer to Q9 is worrying, and the answer to Q8 feels like a complete dodge of the actual question. Courcelles (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

   Actually, Image naming does have something to do with GA criterion. In the Good Article Criterion (on that page section one) #7 says that images must be compliant with Image use policy. The WP:IUP#Name and WP:IUP#Rules of thumb say that the title needs to be appropriate. I also think [[File:US Navy 091019-N-2147L-001 Aviation Boatswains Mate Handler 2nd class Dustin Shipman assigned to the amphibious transport dock ship Pre-Commissioning Unit (PCU) New York (LPD 21), directs an MV-22 Osprey.jpg]] is a little arbitrary to ignore in a GA review. Also, I did not "demand" the user make the change, he asked why it was relevant, and I pointed him to the relevant policy. Further more, I contacted the commons admin to get that request dealt with as commented here. With that nomination that you saw reassessed, I reviewed it with a bit of a conflict of interest as I reviewed it before then and also thought Microsoft was reliable, and good enough to handle the sources until it was pointed out to me on Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_13#Windows_Product_Activation. Also question 9 was just showing that I knew of BLP, every editor makes mistakes, this just happened to be one I could dig up on BLP that I could remember. About the grammar mistake, yes, it's on every one because I template in my reviews and did not catch it till now. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 22:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

   IT still seems like a stretch. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

   Added more to Q9. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 23:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

3. Oppose I don't normally comment at RfA, but I see DeltaQuad displayed the IP Addresses userbox until his/her earlier 2010 RfA (diff), and that he/she has been keeping track of admin related contributions since March (here), so I hope this user isn't trying to simulate perfect RfA candidate behavior, with all that implies. Ironically, though DeltaQuad's own list of RfA criteria looks for over 40% article edits, DeltaQuad has actually achieved only 30.5% article edits (per X!'s Edit Counter). Recent content quality is mixed: Petz Rescue: Ocean Patrol (diff) was definitely improved, but the source promulgated in Windows Product Activation (diff) is little more than a blog, and in Alexa Hampton, where DeltaQuad has carefully converted bare web addresses into structured citations, the destination URLs don't actually support the article content: they are just places where you can start to search for supporting facts. So I'd prefer to see a deeper article improvement record before letting DeltaQuad loose on difficult content disputes. - Pointillist (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

   Difficult content dissputes for the most part fall no more within admin's remit than anyone elses.©Geni 00:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

   Maybe in theory. In practice content is the bedrock (and sources are the ore-bearing veins) underlying many disputes. Admins will just #|$$ off contributors if they can't handle this stuff intelligently. AFAICS DeltaQuad hasn't shown that sufficiently so far. - Pointillist (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

4. Oppose per Courcelles and Pointillist; although I've worked with you at ACC and I respect your work there, I think you're a little inexperienced, when it comes to AIV and RFPP. And besides, I deem your answers to questions 8 and 9 unsatisfactory, even after your additions. I'm sorry, but I have to oppose. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 00:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Oppose per above. Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 00:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
6. Oppose I prefer more article writing, I don't see much history in that very important skill set. Secret ^account 00:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

   Again, let me ask: Why must admins all be authors? School janitors aren't required to be teachers. Connormah^talk 01:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry to barge in, but that's a weakness in the metaphor. School janitors can't tear up your homework or ban you from attending classes – wikipedia admins can. - Pointillist (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

   I'm terrible at metaphors, but my real point is: Why must all admins be authors? We are volunteers, we should be able to work where we want. Connormah^talk 06:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

   I don't expect all admins to be authors. I do expect all admins to demonstrate that their contribution history doesn't inhibit their overall knowledge or judgement, especially in the areas they state a willingness to work in. In the case of non-authors, this might include demonstrating a level head in discussions where you have a view, or demonstrating a knowledge of BLP policy. --WFC-- 11:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

   Just to add two cents, I think it's a matter of empathy: an admin should be able to put themselves in the shoes of any user they may have to deal with from their own personal experience prior to their adminship. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

   I've also thought this. It's not so much that you rack up experience or have certain barnstars or awards. Its just that someone who does not contribute to articles shouldn't be making authoritative decisions about content such as AfD, vandalism, or any number of other disputes that required admin attention. It is all about empathy. Besides, we're all here to build an encyclopedia. Admins should at least know how to do that. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

7. Oppose Bunch of little things add up. First and foremost, I realize some 'crats don't care about content creation vis-a-vis admin qualifications, but I consider it important since admins are empowered to impact editors' content creation. Meanwhile, the user's user page is unnecessarily chaotic (it's great you like pepperoni pizza, but...) and it doesn't render cleanly in my IE7. Further, the candidate's name change is rather recent, and the signature, like the user page, is unnecessarily form-over-function. There appears to be a curious gap in the Talk Page archive history, which is not in correct monthly order. All told, given the candidate's approach to his/her own user spaces, I have concerns. Townlake (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)'

   Just one thing, out of curiosity: how is the signature form-over-function? Is that your view on the candidate's signature in particular or a general opinion about all customised signatures? sonia♫ 04:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

   That's a fair question; I only raise the topic here because it's part of the pattern of this editor's overall self-presentation. I don't think we'll gain anything here from me opining generally on signatures and style. Townlake (talk) 04:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

8. Oppose As per every one of the opposes above in particular the comments by Courcelles, Pointillist, Salvio. I have run my own checks, and the maturity issue is one that especially strike my mind. --Kudpung (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
9. Oppose - No. I see 8 article creations, I see a very strange early edit history, and I'm otherwise unconvinced. Shadowjams (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
10. Oppose - per issues raised by Pointillist. -Reconsider! 07:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Only active for 9 months, very limited experience with article building and with the BLP policy all make me uncomfortable with assigning delete and protect buttons. I'm also concerned by the issues raised by Courcelles & Pointillist. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
12. Oppose. I took a more receptive approach to this RfA than I have recently: I'm sure one or two July candidates will wish in hindsight that I had taken a similar amount of time in forming my decision. I remain unimpressed by answers 3 and 9, which highlight my concerns that the user hasn't compensated for a lack of writing by showing some of the skills that can be gained from writing. These, combined with opposes 2 and 3, vindicate my stance that while non-writers can pass RfA, they need to prove that not writing doesn't affect their suitability for the role. --WFC-- 11:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
13. Oppose. With deep regret. I think you're a great editor and I'd really wanted to support this RfA, but I feel compelled to oppose. I took a look at Ishrat malik, the article you mention in Q9 and you tagged it as G3 and left it unblanked when it was a clear G10 candidate and needed to be blanked to avoid it being picked up by search engines. I could forgive that, since it was last November, but then I looked through your deleted edits and my mind wasn't put at rest. For example, you tagged Conor oreilly (whose content was a repeat of the title) with {{db-nocontext}} less than a minute after it was created. I could be comfortable in the neutral section if that was all, but there are numerous editors I greatly respect above me who all raise very valid and very concerning points. Right now, I wouldn't be comfortable with you having the mop, but everything I see would suggest that you'd do a fine job with it after more time and more experience. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

    Just to point it out for anyone who may be unaware: Both the G3 and G10 tags will mark the page with __NOINDEX__ and add the page to Category:Noindexed pages. Both tags will avoid it being picked up by search engines. (At least, if it's a compliant webcrawler.) :) ^Avicenna_sis @ 19:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

14. Oppose. Insufficient content experience. Its why we are here and the tools are just a means of making the content better. This oppose isn't about trust, it pure and simple about lack of tangible and broad content experience. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
15. Mainly due to lack of content creation. Also unimpressed with answers to some of the questions. Nothing majorly worrying I suppose, but just can't support. BigDom 18:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
16. Oppose. As said above, insufficient content experience and very unimpressed with the answers to the questions. Several of the answers are hard to understand (I had to read them several times to figure out what you were trying to say), and communication problems are worrying in an admistrator. The lack of content experience I thought showed particularly in the answer to question 12. Block first, page protect second? While this may be the right mindset for dealing with vandals, it is often not the right approach for content disputes. For someone wanting to with RFPP, this seems like an ill-considered answer. Karanacs (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
17. Oppose Concerns raised by Pointillist leave me unable to trust the candidate at this time. Vodello (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
18. As Pointillist pointed out above, this candidate doesn't even seem to meet his own RfA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 21:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

    So obviously since he doesn't meet his own standards, he's a raving lunatic who can't be trusted with the tools. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

    Or a hypocrite, which is worse. Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

    Got a match? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

    If you have a point to make, then I suggest that you try making it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

    I did. Your argument is empty, and voids the possibility that someone might have a differing view from a prior view. You're burning them at the stake for applying for adminship when their standards are above themselves, and accusing them of hypocrisy. It's disgusting, in the least. That said, I don't expect you to change your vote. But, the absurdity of it has at least been highlighted. And that's the point of RfA; to debate the appropriateness of a candidate in discussion with other contributors. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

    It seems to me that with your "burning at the stake" analogy you have confused hypocrisy with heresy, but in any event, if it's your intention to change my mind then you'll have to look a little deeper into your own motivations for beginning this discussion. Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

    I believe both are appropriate in this case, and mixed. Regardless, my intent was never to get you to change your vote. That wasn't going to happen. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

    Just a note, DeltaQuad's RfA standards don't say that the candidate is expected to pass every single one, they just list a number of criteria and say which way each one would point - and going on the standards as a whole, I think DeltaQuad actually would pass. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

    Hammersoft, I didn't mean that DeltaQuad is a raving lunatic, or even a hypocrite. It's just that—even though we like to call them "janitors"—our admins have significant powers over article content. WP's "anyone can edit" policy means that content can become unexpectedly controversial, even after long periods of stability, and the principle that all admins are equal means that any admin may become sucked into content debates. The corollary is that every user hoping to be appointed admin is expected to be able to identify content issues and then either recuse from them or decide them to a high standard. In this respect DeltaQuad has shown insufficient experience IMO. - Pointillist (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

19. Oppose per Pointillist. Not enough experience with content contribution. Go create a few articles, and get one or two of them to GA status, then come back. SnottyWong ^confabulate 23:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

    For the millionth time - why must we ask this? We all have different strengths, and shouldn't be forced to work in areas of weakness?Connormah^talk 23:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

    Isn't it obvious? If you're not a good enough editor to get an article to GA status, you're obviously incompetent. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

    What ought to be obvious to you, but clearly isn't, is that editors not "good enough" to get articles to GA are being put in charge of those who are, completely arse-about-face. Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

    What ought to be obvious, but isn't, is that a person can be a highly competent administrator without being a fantastic article writer. The skill sets are not the same. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

    So Malleus, if content creation is so important, why aren't you an admin? If it was pure content, you'd be an admin by now; but it's not just about being a great article writer. Adminship doesn't do anything to your ability to write articles. It's about having a familiarity with the community and at least the basic policies (although with BLP, I don't think anyone really knows what the hell the standards are, even admins). I'm not sure why anyone would trust your vote; look what happens when you support. This is what happens when I edit after I come home from inhaling chlorine at work for several hours in a bad mood; I'm sure you can relate on some level. Sorry. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話す下さい) 21:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

    When did this become my RfA? The rules of engagement are that you're allowed to say whatever you like about the candidate, he's basically put himself in the firing line, but your assertion that my vote is of dubious value is a very clear personal attack, which I would encourage you not to repeat. Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

    Have it your way, then. I think I let my temper get the best of me (just got back from a rough day at work), but my main point (about content not being the sole determinant) stands. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話す下さい) 22:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

    @Connormah. In principle I agree with your "we all have different strengths, and shouldn't be forced to work in areas of weakness", but in practice the current admin model gives wide discretion, and having seen how it takes months of effort to de-sysop long-established admins who were complete pillocks, I think it is essential to require a minimum standard of content competence from every aspiring admin. - Pointillist (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

    While I certainly respect your opinion, I don't really see how this effects the ability to perform certain admin tasks (eg. blocking, etc), but I feel it is very subjective. Connormah^talk 02:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

    It is quite saddening to see that the above discussion implies that good content=competence. This is far from the truth. Airplaneman ✈ 11:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

    All I said was that a candidate's content experience is a necessary condition for me to support an RfA. It isn't the only condition and I don't mean admins have to be fantastic article writers – what a waste that would be. But we are here to build an encyclopedia, so reliably sourced unbiased content comes first. It trumps every other card. It is by far the most sacred of our cows. I know how hard it is to fight vandalism and spam but if we have too few admins we can simply suspend anonymous editing. We can never suspend our commitment to content. - Pointillist (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

20. Oppose, concerns about lack of content experience. -- Cirt (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
21. Oppose. Per above and per concerns with judgment, experience, and policy knowledge. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
22. Oppose per Pointillist and Karancs. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
23. Oppose needs more experience. Racepacket (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
24. Weak oppose per a weak response to #12, and per pointillist. You have thus far created 8 articles of which 3 are simple lists, 1 is a disambiguation, and 3 are split from other articles... You've also only uploaded a single image. It also seems as though you haven't made more than 10 edits to any mainspace article (except Alexa Hampton). Consider creating and maintaining an article you create.Smallman12q (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
25. Oppose Only 8 articles created, with none of them to GA or FA status. It doesn't convince me that you understand enough wikipedia policies. Minimac (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

    Someone has some high standards, don't they. --ANowlin: talk 22:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

    Please talk about ideas rather than people (I have to make a template for this it seems, I don't know if it's sticking...) Doc Quintana (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

26. Sorry, I just don't understand this RfA. I just feel not enough content creation or experience; not even a DYK? Although I'd be happy to support in the future. Tommy! [message] 23:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
27. Sorry, I've been thinking on this one for a few days to the point where I've opened edit boxes in both support and oppose columns and not saved the !vote. I don't think content contributions are generally necessary for an RfA candidate. But you want to work in areas like AN3, which I believe require an understanding of content policies and article-related dispute resolution. In that context, the lack of contributions and the issues raised by Courcelles somewhat compel me to land here. Also (and this is why I'm glad I waited for this RfA to play out a bit) the multiple stabs at a number of not so difficult questions suggest you're not quite there yet. Ultimately I think the risk of giving you the tools prematurely outweighs any detriment by having a few months before the next RfA.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
28. Oppose Can't support per some of the above and in particular HJ Mitchell. Davewild (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
29. Oppose Too many concerns raised by other editors above to support adminship at this time. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
30. Oppose Experience. Jmlk17 07:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
31. Oppose- I concur with HJ Mitchell, while you have been an active contributor, only 30% of your contributions are located within mainspace, I know I am not in a position to make this statement or contend with the Support and nominations of long standing members of the community, a bit more recognised content and mainspace contributions would change my mind. I don't mean to be biased or rude but I don't think you're ready. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 22:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

    Comment: Why have you stolen HJ Mitchell's signature? /HeyMid (contributions) 11:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

32. Oppose. Very much talk, lesser article work and almost no contributions for wiki-tech. No offence but as for me such proportion is far from ideal. Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 11:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
33. Oppose Needs some more experience before doing a RFA again.--Pookeo9 ^{Talk If you need anything} 12:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
34. Oppose, sorry. A number of things lead me into this column (edit count and length of service do not worry me): This is not something I would release into main space, neither is this, yet both are singled out as some of your best content contributions. This page leaves a bitter taste, too. Multiple stabs at many of the questions haven't led to answers convincing me (QQ 6, 8, 9, 12, and yes, also 13). Great editor, no doubt, and no offense intended, but too early for adminship. --Pgallert (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral Will oppose if there is no answer to question 9, but would gladly support if my BLP fears can be allayed. --WFC-- 21:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Leaning oppose; unimpressed by answer to Q9, and to an extent oppose #2 might tie in with this. This is a concern; while AIV and RFPP can always do with help, accuracy is as (if not more) important than speed. Will evaluate the candidate's contributions in more depth than I normally would before deciding whether to stay here or go over to the dark side. --WFC-- 22:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Replied to Q9. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 23:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Moving to oppose --WFC-- 11:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Neutral - I've seen your name around occasionally and find you trustworthy. However, I'm a little concerned by your response to q.1 where you say you'll work in WP:AIV and WP:RPP. You've got less than 10 edits in RPP (the top edited pages on wikipedia according to the X! counter has the lowest page as 10 or so edits and RPP doesn't show up). Additionally, you've only got 48 edits in AIV. Is this enough experience to admin these areas? Neutral for now until further research. Paralympiakos (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
2. I wouldn't have an issue with this passing, because I don't think DQ would misuse the tools, and because the concerns in the above section don't bother me for the most part (edits to templates are a prerequisite for adminship?). However- my issue here is that I've gotten the general impression that DQ sees adminship as a bit of a personal goal. I have no problem with users who admit they want to be an admin, because even the most humble of candidates would not have run if they had not wanted the tools at the time. But when it is treated as a milestone to be reached, that at the same time both inflates its importance and diminishes its role. I would like this to pass, but I think it is good that it's the way it is, because I'm sure that the candidate will take on all this advice and feedback and come back in a few months with a new outlook and insight into things, much more equipped for the role. All the best. sonia♫ 00:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC) modified 09:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Neutral - moved from Support. I see a really good Wikipedian here, but having seen some poor content quality and some poor CSD tagging uncovered by others, I now think the candidate is not quite ready yet. While I don't believe that it is necessary to be a great content creator in order to be an admin, what content work is there needs to be up to scratch and a good working knowledge of content is needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

   Moved to support I dont want to oppose because theres an effort going on here and a dedicated involvement. The deleted contributions listed by HJ mitchell have me second guessing support though. Especially one where the article was just created and momentarily tagged. One oppose above does strike me. Per the criteria that Delta holds other admin candidates in which he does not actually meet (article edit %). Although the classic disclaimer that there are exceptions for case by case which is perfectly reasonable. I would expect though a person running to hold themselves to their own criteria if they choose to list them. For that matter there is no opposition from me over this nomination, to me thats not a reason to oppose, just an observation causing a raised eyebrow. To the closing bureaucrat though if this is close. I do think this editor will be a net benefit to the project as an admin, I do think trust can be assigned here. I certainly do not oppose his nomination, if it is close please consider this a borderline support. Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

   Respectfully, I suggest that you should move to support if you want to support. This reads like you want to support if the RFA passes, but not if it doesn't. Townlake (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

   Agreed. Mlpearc powwow 15:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

   Further Agreed, in that it as a net benefit to the project this should be in the support coloumn Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

4. Unfortunately had my mind changed to neutral due to issues raised in oppose I otherwise would not have seen. -- bydand•talk 16:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Switching from support to neutral due to some of the concerns raised in the oppose section, particularly Courcelles' rationale. Reach Out to the Truth 17:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
6. Neutral - Overall I think the candidate has done decent work and probably wouldn't abuse the tools. While I don't find the arguments in the oppose section convincing and serious enough for me to oppose this candidacy, I can't comfortably support it in light of those arguments either. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 18:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

   My overall feeling just doesn't allow me to wither oppose or support, so I'll plant myself here. Connormah^talk 20:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

7. Neutral. Inexperience is not an issue here - I was here for less than six months when I became an administrator, for example - but I do get the feeling that you're not ready. There's also a lot of "to clarify" in the questions and answers section, which is disconcerting in a way. Esteffect (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
8. I'm stuck on this one, so I'll be neutral. DeltaQuad has done some excellent work, but there are some convincing opposes. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 19:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
9. Neutral There are convincing arguments to oppose and support, but I think this user has a good future ahead of them. For now though, I am too conflicted to support.Doc Quintana (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
10. 'Neutral per all.  Ⓢock  04:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
11. Neutral per Doc Quintana. In particular, while I applaud your desire to work in SPI (it certainly needs more bodies) I'm concerned that you may lack experience at the moment. I'm impressed with your response to q.14 and would hope - if this RfA is unsuccessful - that there's another RfA in the not too distant future. TFOWR 09:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
12. Neutral per NerdyScienceDude and concerns about lack of policy knowledge. ••Pepper•• 21:45, 9 August 2010 (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.