This user is proudly Canadian.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:DeltaQuad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.
fr-3Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau avancé de français.
es-1Este usuario puede contribuir con un nivel básico de español.
Search user languages
User:DeltaQuad/SPI case list
User talk:DeltaQuad/IP
User talk:DeltaQuad/DQB
User talk:DeltaQuad

Contact information
  • Email: Email me (Email rules)
  • IRC: @wikipedia/DeltaQuad, under nicks similar to DeltaQuad or Izhidez. (See IRC channel at the top for my home)

ACC Interface

Just wanted to let you know, in case you didn't realize it, that your "homepage" link at points to DeltaQuad rather than User:DeltaQuad. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712, I sent a pull request to fix this, and some of my information - see: [1] SQLQuery me! 20:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Global watchlist - Update 1

COI edit request from behind a blocked IP range 7-OCT-2019

Hello! There is an edit request at User_talk: from a user who is behind an IP which you had blocked last year. I understand that requests from blocked users may be disregarded, but was unsure how to proceed when the block is on an IP range, and not on a specific editor. May I answer the request? Please advise. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  12:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a potential proxy, so if your willing to take responsibility for the edit, go for it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-41

15:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Just curious

Why was the RfA of RexxS sent to crat chat, and the RfA of Greenman (with a higher support/oppose ratio, and rising for the last days) not? I haven't seen an RfA going up from 50 to 61. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I was also curious if you had considered sending this to a wider discussion. What weighting (if any) did you apply to those whose sole oppose rationale mentioned COI editing but failed to actually provide any evidence of controversial edits? I found these to be particularly unconvincing and indicative of a pile-on. –xenotalk 22:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

So next question: could the crats decide they want to chat about it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I don’t think there’s precedent for that. Certainly a closing statement at least was indicated here. –xenotalk 22:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
So next question: even without a precedent, could the crats (or one crat to begin) say that the unique RfA might profit from more eyes? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I mean, sure, yes, with my bureaucrat hat on: I think it would have benefited from a bureaucrat discussion. However if DeltaQuad doesn’t want to send it there, I respect their decision but suggest a detailed closing rationale be provided. –xenotalk 22:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm also surprised at the quick closure given the circumstances. I'm aware, Amanda, that you commented on the talkpage of the RfA that you were not in favour of a vote to extend the RfA, but I'm not sure how aware you were then or at the close of the exceptional circumstances of this RfA. A comment as to your thinking on the matter, and the rationale you used to dismiss the circumstances would have been useful. Indeed, it still would be. An indication, at least, that you were aware of the circumstances and decided to disregard them, would be something. I can't recall any RfA in which people were talking strongly as to how it should be closed early because it was such an obvious fail, that then turned around to climb within a few points of a crat chat. We've had an RfA recently pass successfully at 64%, and this one in a matter of days climbed from under 50% (I think it was at 48%) to 61%. I don't think the candidate should be an admin, but there were plenty who did so, and out of courtesy to them some comment should have been offered. Also, it would be useful to 'Crats in the future to have some rationale to refer to in deciding that a reverse of direction and strong climb in the last few days due to positive arguments used in an RfA does not count as "exceptional circumstances". SilkTork (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
To come out strongly against an extension, and then making your very next edit to be closing the same RfA on the minute ... the optics aren't great. –xenotalk 23:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Optics are all about how you view something, not what it actually is. There was a picture that I saw a while back where someone showed two different angles of a picture. The front on angle showed something like several fingers up in the air. The second picture, from a side angle made it look like he was giving someone the middle finger. If you plaster the second photo on the news and social media, then ya, "optics" will never look good. There was 16.5 hours in between those edits, and include me staying up and watching Chicago PD and Fire along with doing some very heavy lifting on essay research and note collection for my courses right now. That and I stayed up till like 7am specifically for work so I could make money. That's why I didn't make any other edits in between that talkpage edit and the close. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Sure, but for a bureaucrat to be seen to be impartial is sometimes just as important as actually being impartial. –xenotalk 00:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
With respect, no. The person is or is not impartial, based on facts. We don't ban someone from the encyclopedia for looking like they are going to be a problem, same with potentially problematic CUs or ArbCom members. 'Looking' impartial is appeasement of the public for what they want to hear. Wikipedia is here for diverging viewpoints, not turning into a political circus like some ArbCom proceedings have. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
The person is or is not impartial, based on facts ... 'Looking' impartial is appeasement of the public for what they want to hear. is surprising to read. Avoiding the appearance of impropriety isn't about appeasing the public, but reassuring them. Crats should be seen to be impartial so that editors have no reason to question their impartiality, so that editors are confident in the process. Levivich 02:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
We are getting way too deep into theory. I commented in line with policy, just like the admin who closed it. I did not express a vote, just an interpretation of policy before it spun out of control. And then yes, hours later after I woke up, I closed the RfA on time. If someone wants to dig that far into it, that's their choice. I watched the RfA week long, even clerked at other parts of it. I'm not using a bias. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I’m sure that you feel you have been impartial. I still think it was a mistake for you to close the RfA on your own under these circumstances, as there are other bureaucrats who had not opined so directly in the discussion that could have done so. Being a bureaucrat requires a different skill set and approach than being on the arbitration committee. Could you please write your closing rationale into the RfA? Thank you. –xenotalk 05:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
For greater certainty, the mistake I feel was made here was in relation to the opinion being provided on the extension, and then being the one to close it on the minute. Sending it to a bureaucrat discussion is a distinct topic and I do not feel any mistake was made there, though I would not have taken the same approach. DeltaQuad, I've been contributing while time-limited and distracted, and some of my comments may be coming across harsher than I've intended (including one unintended word choice I found at BN). Please accept my apologies for this. –xenotalk 03:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I came to ask why Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Greenman does not appear to have a result, just a 'silent' box-close. My recollection is it is usually stated to be 'successful', 'unsuccessful', or 'no consensus' (sometimes with more added as a closing rationale, which I take it some of above are asking for). Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Alanscottwalker: the very first line of that page says: The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. That "closed as unsuccessful" wasn't typed in doesn't seem to be confusing to the reader. — xaosflux Talk 23:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, it is normal convention to type it in, but it's still rather obvious. For another example this year, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/JJMC89. — xaosflux Talk 23:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Xaosflux, Eh, look again at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GermanJoe: "Closed as successful by Primefac (talk) at 23:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)" is precisely the type of note I was expecting but Greenman does not have it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (some of these may have ec'd each other) - I agree it is the modern convention to type it in to the wikitext. It was typed in to the edit summary as well as using the template though (see Special:Diff/920938087). — xaosflux Talk 00:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I put it into the template that gets substituted, and apparently it didn't make it to the final. I mean it does say "did not succeed" at the top of the page, but I can make it clearer. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, especially with 'did not succeed' it has come up before, was that one unsuccessful or no consensus (and perhaps withdrawn too) Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC) (I should add, thanks for your time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC))
  • I am building a statement for the talkpage here, not ignoring this, please give me a bit to do so. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to compare this RfA with a previous RfA. The numbers at the end of the day only give an idea, not determine the direction something should go.
My assessment of this RfA is that it was unsuccessful. There is mention of the COI issue, but that is not the only issue that plagued the oppose section of this RfA. Looking at the COI opposes, a lot of editors comboed their opposes with comments about other things. Amoung this: answers to questions, questions of suitability and ability to respond with a thought out explanation in line with consensus, and concerns about article development and deletion all were flagged. That said, I also looked back through the support section, and found a lot of supporters dismissing the COI issue or just giving a generic support. In fact, some people in support even said they were concerned by some of the things noted in the oppose section, but not enough to sway their weaker support vote into an oppose.
As for how this RfA went from below 50% to a last minute resurgence of support, it still had the standard 7 days. If we had left it open for a longer period of time, there would be concerns that we were trying to bake the numbers to show more support. There was no new issues presented before the last few days of the RfA that made it important to keep the debate going. It's simply people finding the time to vote. If we held every RfA open just for people to vote, we'd never close them. I get that things statistically flipped. But you also see this type of thing happen at the start of an RfA. It starts out all as supports before people start finding reasons to oppose. Some might make an argument for a snow closure in favour at that point. The point is, regardless of where it occurs, statistical flips occur in every form of vote (!votes and votes). Closing them early because of it, or closing it late because of it only increases the level of bias in determining the canidates success or failure. We don't close ArbCom votes or Steward votes early or late because of this. Same as political elections in the world beyond the internet. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Can you address why there wasn't a discussion among crats about having a crat chat before this was closed? Levivich 02:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I didn't take it to BN as I felt the consensus was clear enough. Barring a requirement, I had no reason to. I can't speak for other crats if they were concerned why they didn't post a thread on BN about a chat being needed. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I note, Amanda, that you are taking the line that this was just a run of the mill RfA. Yet there are a number of people here on your talkpage who are querying your close. Is that run of the mill, in your experience, for a RfA which closed at 61%? And, in a RfA where there has been talk of leaving it open for a little longer than the minimum seven days, in which you dismissed the notion of keeping it open, why did you close it over two hours early? Given your involvement in this RfA, in which you had expressed a view that it should be closed, was it wise in the circumstances to close it earlier than normal? Your impartiality in this RfA is in question here as it could be viewed that you were not the person best placed to close this; and it is particularly unfortunate in the circumstances that you closed it early before another Crat could look it over.
Your argument that closing at a specified time is the most appropriate way of achieving consensus is not how I see us arriving at consensus on Wikipedia. I don't see it as about completing the discussion within a fixed time; I see it more about ensuring that people have a fair chance of putting their views across. We often extend discussions if consensus is not clear, or discussion is still ongoing. It is generally regarded as inappropriate to close a discussion too soon - that is when discussion is still ongoing and the matter has not yet reached stalemate. There were 26 votes in the past 24 hours, 18 of which were for support. This was still a discussion in which people wished to take part, and in which the majority of new votes were pushing for support. I didn't feel the candidate was appropriate for adminship, yet I could see the value of keeping the discussion open to establish a consensus. We run Wikipedia by consensus, not by fixed (or arbitrary) time limits or by the word of law. If the wording of our policies hinders fairness or progress, we don't stick by the word of the policy - we are a wiki, so instead we change the wording to meet the intention. In this case, I don't see that the wording nor the intention called for a strict seven day to the minute close, let alone an early one. SilkTork (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@SilkTork: Preliminary reply: I did not close it early. This says "Scheduled to end 20:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)", and my diff is noted at 20:56. That's a minute past, not two hours early. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I was basing the two hours early on the time stamp of the nominator which shows to me as "12:12 pm, 5 October 2019", and the time stamp of your close as "9:56 pm, Yesterday" (12 October), so it appeared to me to be two hours short. But I now see that there were votes starting at 10:27 pm, 5 October 2019, so the 12:12 pm time stamp of the nominator has led me astray. I apologise. I think there were some errors in setting up the time stamp which has resulted in the nominator's statement being timed as pm instead of am (at least on my browser). SilkTork (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
There are 3 people here who are concerned about the closure. Not sure that qualifies as "a number of people". I don't have much history to go on, as the community only lowered it's consensus mark earlier this year, but Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AmericanAir88 was closed no consensus/unsuccessful in August at 57%. As I noted above, I closed it on time, not two hours early. I closed it after I was up for the day and made it to my computer. My "involvement" in this RfA was making a note of how I would handle things based on existing policy. I did not believe it clouded my judgement even in the slightest. If I thought it did, I would have stopped, it's why I don't run CUs on RfAs I clerk now, because I am a crat. If you want, I am absolutely happy and willing to face the music of the community and my fellow crats with a post at BN. If I did truly do something wrong, it can then be overturned there or I can be trouted or disciplined in what ever matter needed.
I have read your viewpoint here, and while I can see where it comes from, I disagree from an RfA standpoint. It's one of the most hostile areas of the wiki. We have had several timed RfCs where it has said it will close on X day such as the ACE RfC, 2012 PC RfC, Office actions RfC, and I'm sure more that I am done dumpster diving for. If you think I've still stepped over a line, like I said, please do take this to BN. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I posted at WP:BN#Greenman RfA. (Not that I think you stepped over the line.) Levivich 04:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
DQ, I only asked why, remember. You say "I felt the consensus was clear enough", I say the same, but we reached different results. If I was you I'd just revert the close and let someone else do it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not asking for anything more here than a reflection on the incident. I think it prudent in such cases to offer an explanation of the rationale given the circumstances (which you have now done, though placing it on the RfA at the time of the close would have been better, and that's something I'm sure you'll consider moving forward). I also think, given the circumstances, that the Crat who opposed the idea of extending the RfA should have considered the reaction of the some parts of the community if they were also the one to close the RfA, particularly with a such a strict timing. I want to reiterate that I personally feel the candidate was not suitable for the role of admin, however, I prefer to see consensus unfold and reach an appropriate outcome than simply achieve what I want. As regards the issue of was this your average Joe RfA that should have closed on time - I think we're probably going to have to agree to differ on that. Indeed, it might be a matter for an open discussion, perhaps via a RfC (when things are more settled in a few months time), on what sorts of things could be considered to be "exceptional circumstances" in an RfA, such that it could be considered for extension. SilkTork (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I've posted a rationale and definitely will consider posting one next time when it's closer to this number. Would like to avoid more of the drama beforehand. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for posting it. –xenotalk 18:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I waded here somehow, but just want to lend my support - I think your close was proper. Historically, very few users with <70% support become admins, and I can't find any with a lower tally than RexxS, which was quite unusual (there may have been one or two more awhile back, I don't remember, I looked at the stats a couple of hours ago.) Perhaps a "crat chat" would be worthwhile here, but with all due respect to the candidate, it would be historically extraordinary if anything changed. SportingFlyer T·C 09:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Just wanted to say I fully support and endorse your closure, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 12:49, 13 October 2019‎
  • +1 and fully support your closure. More at BN. Lourdes 14:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Also fully support the close. What's the point of having a specified discretionary range if we're going to start regularly ignoring it? And @Xeno: given that you were quite vocal in supporting this RfA and arguing against those of who opposed because of the COI editing, is it really appropriate for you to suggest to your fellow crat how she should weight the votes you disagree with? For a bureaucrat to be seen to be impartial is sometimes just as important as actually being impartial and all that. – Joe (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
    Joe, I don’t think I supported the RfA and asking someone to substantiate their claim is not “arguing against.” Nor did I ask DeltaQuad to weigh the votes the way I would have, merely asking them to elucidate their thought process, which they’ve now done. I support DQ’s closure. –xenotalk 18:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Joe, before people go off track here, the concerns raised were in regard to Amanda closing without a rationale given the circumstances. It's not about the "specified discretionary range", it's about the timescale and the guidance given that seven days is a "minimum" (not a maximum), and that 'Crats can decide to extend longer in "exceptional circumstances". As part of that discussion was that Amanda commented in the RfA that she was not in favour of such an extension, so there was a query as to was she the Crat best placed to close this RfA, particularly as it was not overdue for closing, so there was an "appearance" of possible bias. Amanda has explained that as she saw and felt no bias - that she was closing normally, she didn't consider there was a need to make that clear to anyone else. As for closing as unsuccessful at 61% - of course. I don't think there's anyone who is saying that is an inappropriate close. It is a) lack of rationale, b) appearance of potential bias, and c) closing strictly on time that are the concerns here. And these have now all been addressed by Amanda. SilkTork (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
SilkTork - you mention "appearance" of possible bias. when it comes to Amanda's close - yet I don't see you mentioning "the appearance of possible bias" when it comes to the COI editing issue. Also saying I don't think there's anyone who is saying that is an inappropriate close. might be a bit of a stretch given the comments here and at WP:BN, but admittedly you do preface that with "I don't think there's anyone", so perhaps that's a subjective review of the situation. — Ched (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Well I agree that some people, such as myself, were concerned that a prompt close was made by a Crat who had indicated they didn't see the value in keeping it open, and that there was no rationale given for what was a non-standard RfA, however my take on the discussion here (I've not looked at BN as I'm satisfied with Amanda's response) is that folks are not concerned about a close of unsuccessful at 61%. It was closing on time when there had been discussion about extending it, without making a statement about the close, that appeared to me to be the focus of the discussion on this page. SilkTork (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@SilkTork: I have to disagree. Gerda's original question was why wasn't there a crat chat, and xeno followed that up with I was also curious if you had considered sending this to a wider discussion. – Joe (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I can't speak for Gerda, but my take on their comment was in regard to a 'Crat chat to discuss extending the RfA because the swing was still upward, rather than discussing the possibility of passing the candidate at 61%. SilkTork (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I thought I was clear enough. I would have liked this - with a COI accusation that could not be substantiated - to have gone to crat chat. I accept your afterwards reasoning, Amanda, but would (obviously) have weighed arguments differently, which is fine. Peace? - Just what can we do to not have the same 11-year old copyvio and alledged COI come up in Greenman's RfA2? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
"At this particular time stamp I'm not seeing that it would be valid to keep this open beyond the standard seven day minimum".1 Lourdes 05:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, at that particular timestamp it looked like the swing toward support had stalled, but after that it continued upward again. We don't know how the RfA would have ended if it had been kept open, though I suspect it wouldn't have reached pass level. Amanda applied the strict sense of seven days as that in her view is the best way of deciding a RfA. There are many who agree with this approach. My view is slightly different, as I feel the procedures are here to serve us rather than we serve the procedures. Amanda's approach is strict and firm so there is a uniformity which gives a clear standard. My approach is more fluid and flexible to accommodate the situation. It's a difference in philosophy, and I cherish the range of approaches within Wikipedia - that is the strength and beauty of our project, and why we favour having discussions when outcomes are unclear. Of course, the point at when a discussion becomes appropriate can at times be blurry, as was the case here. SilkTork (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I supported both Rexxs and Greenman, and I think I was in that small minority who supported lowering the discretionary band to 60%. But I can recognise when consensus is against me. I'm OK with this close. The rally in support from under 50% to 61% was very unusual, but I don't see it as being late enough and steep enough to justify an extension or a crat chat. If the post close conversation was dominated by opposers saying that they regretted not having the opportunity to reassess and go neutral or even support then things would be different. Instead we have some of the opposers hoping that the candidate will come back to RFA at some point next year. I wish that people were more willing to support those who they thought were good candidates but who weren't quite ready. But we are where we are, and in the circumstances it was a valid close. ϢereSpielChequers 11:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-42

23:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Recent edit on my talk page

Hi, out of interest could you tell me what was the username of the editor who left a message on my talk page and its content (which is now removed)? Thanks :) JACKINTHEBOXTALK 05:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@JackintheBox: Sadly, I can't tell you the username, otherwise I would not of removed it. They are blocked if that helps. The content was drive by trolling, if you want to know the exact words, I can tell you that. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks :) JACKINTHEBOXTALK 06:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@JackintheBox: per your edit summary, "Dear Jack-Box, Your username is COPYWRITE TRAP!" was the content. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Do you think the Michael Johnson1212 who also left a message on my talk page is a sockpuppet (possibly of the hidden user)? JACKINTHEBOXTALK 06:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Ran a CU, came back unrelated. That said it's definitely interesting the they were about the same thing. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)