Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/QEDK: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:23, 23 January 2020 editRet.Prof (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers15,357 edits Still I see him as a net positive.← Previous edit Revision as of 15:34, 23 January 2020 edit undoRet.Prof (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers15,357 edits →Support: A net positive.Next edit →
Line 238: Line 238:
#'''Support''' - no concerns, will be an asset. ] (]) 13:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC) #'''Support''' - no concerns, will be an asset. ] (]) 13:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
# Good luck! '''] ]''' 14:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC) # Good luck! '''] ]''' 14:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
#'''Support:''' Some of the oppose comments gave me pause. However I think the candidate will address those concerns. - ] (]) 15:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


=====Oppose===== =====Oppose=====

Revision as of 15:34, 23 January 2020

QEDK

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (129/8/3); Scheduled to end 13:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination

QEDK (talk · contribs) – Today, I'm nominating a long-term editor that many of you will probably recognize. QEDK has been helping out with various admin tasks for a while now. As a trustworthy and helpful editor, I think it's time we consider promoting QEDK to become an administrator. As a CheckUser, I'm most familiar with QEDK's work as a non-admin clerk at SPI. Although the non-admin clerks do a lot of useful work, they are limited by their inability to block obvious sock puppets or perform history merges. As a perpetually backlogged area, giving trusted clerks more responsibilities can only help. I think you'll agree that QEDK has a demonstrated need for the administrator tools and has shown a willingness to pitch in and help where needed, whether it's dealing with sock puppetry, vandalism, or something as mundane as page moves. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Co-nomination

I’m delighted to nominate QEDK for adminship. In fact I’ve been urging him for months to take the plunge; he seems like a natural to me. He is best known as an SPI clerk. He is also a valuable closer of move discussions, having both the page mover right and the skill to perform round robin history swaps. He is familiar with admin-related areas like UAA, AIV, and RfPP - even abuse filters where he is an abusefilter helper. He has a good record at AfD. He’s been here since 2010 and has 19,000 edits. IMO he is definitely ready, and I believe he will be a fine addition to the admin corps. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you MelanieN and NinjaRobotPirate for your kind words and advice. I gladly accept this nomination. I would also like to state that I have never edited for pay (and never will). --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: As a long-time clerk at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations, I primarily intend to use the administrator tools to block sockpuppets disrupting Misplaced Pages. I also intend to help out at WP:RFPP and WP:AIV, where I have contributed a fair amount of edits and which stay backlogged for long periods of time. I will also work with granting user rights at WP:PERM, primarily with the page mover right, with which I am the most familiar. I close requested moves pretty often and the ability to move over protected pages, and moving over existing history would be helpful.
As I become more used to the administrator toolset, I also intend to help out at AfD and NPP, where I hope to contribute with improving articles and deleting pages per policy, as the need be. I believe there are always more things to learn and I hope to pick them up as I go. There are also areas like ANRFC, which are in dire requirement of administrative attention, and I hope to contribute more to those areas.
2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?
A: I am proud of the stubs I make on endangered and critically-endangered species, such as the Mahé boulder cricket and Paradecolya briseferi. It is fairly hard to find information on these topics but coverage on these endangered species are important, as they are of significant academic interest. I am also proud of the 2019 India doctors' strike article which I created and worked on significantly while the strike was ongoing, I hope to bring it to good article status as soon as I get the time. I have also created and worked on articles such as April 2016 Kabul attack and the Kolkata flyover collapse, both of which were nominated and posted to ITN, which are among some of the ITN candidates I work on before they are posted.
As a non-administrator, I was involved with the page mover request for comment, userspace draft policy revamp and most recently, MOSMAC3. In my opinion, I believe working to improve the present state of Misplaced Pages with the general consensus is the way forward and being a part of it is what makes us a part of this community. That also comes with my involvement and interest in the meta-space and policy-formation venues on Misplaced Pages.
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: As a lot of my edits are in the Misplaced Pages namespace, it is fair to say I have been a witness to various degrees of conflicts in my tenure. I, for one, do not believe that shying away from conflicts can always resolve issues, it is important to get your point across and understand the viewpoints of other editors. That naturally means developing a nuanced approach to how you do things. When I started off, I was definitely less adept at dealing with other editors but I believe I have done better since then and worked to deal with other editors collaboratively.
One particular incident that I was heavily involved in was the Future Perfect at Sunrise arbitration case request. I believe I would have handled things differently now (even if I had filed an arbitration request). I've recently worked with FPAS on the formation of MOSMAC3 and it was a good and complex experience working with editors of different viewpoints collaborate to reach a positive outcome. Either way, that case ended up resolved by motion and I remember it being quite stressful for me then. I've learnt from the incident and since then, I've learnt to separate my online and real life - and thus, I take frequent breaks and edit when I want to, instead of feeling that I need to. That helps me take the edge off, and being on Misplaced Pages becomes an enjoyable hobby rather than a daunting task.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from SoWhy
4. Can you explain this G11 tagging, this edit and this AFD please?
A: Most of the article was written in a promotional tone and exhibited terms commonly used for puffery. Firstly, taking note that there was no sourcing at all, we can discuss the rest of the article:
Abha Dharampal (now CEO) had won the Best Teacher award, which Best Teacher award is being referred to is unclear. We have the National Award for Teachers (India) but even if true, the award doesn't exist (in its current verbiage) and can be said to be a promotional claim.
Now the school has updated itself into all ac and 24x7 Access, this statement is clearly intended for advertisement. This is not notable or significant enough for inclusion in the English Misplaced Pages.
after which it has consistently been able to get honoured by the International School Award by Cambridge, comparing with the current article, the awarding institution is wrong and even then, it was for the year 2015-16, which makes this a false promotional claim.
The "Initiatives taken" section is clearly promotional, as evident from the language used — an additional mode of learning through experiencing..., USGS educational trips promote learning with enjoyment..., These are fun trips for interaction..., etc.
The next section is similar, where we observe language such as: This is done in a fun-filled, interactive manner... and ...to inculcate essential skills for life.
Known as the famous showcase of extraordinary talent, USGS hosts its annual day in a very prosperous and celebrative way... is clearly also intended to promote the subject of the article, utilizing promotional language to uplift the image of the school. It goes on to say ...proud USGSites display their talent in an innovative way, on the school's playground. This enhances the school's ability to produce entrepreneurs and all-rounders which is also mostly puffery with no real encyclopedic information.
Finally, there is the "Achievements" section, which is a bulleted list of everything that is positive about the school, whether true or not, but written in a manner of promoting the school: The 100% computer literacy award., Has produced the highest number of toppers in the shortest time frame., The school has introduced AS and A level courses ... which has produced world toppers and India toppers. which are again questionable and unencyclopedic information which may or may not be true but clearly written in a way to produce a good image of the school in question.
To remove all of this promotional tone would constitute a fundamental rewrite of the article in question and hence meet the WP:CSD#G11 criteria.
Moving on to the Uche Odoputa article, I made a wrong judgement in the assessment of what the "assertion of notability" is. While A7 requires that no notability is asserted, I had tagged it even though a assertion of notability was present, which was a wrong judgement on my part.
Lastly in the case of the Nail H. Ibragimov article, I also made a wrong judgement in assessing the subject to not meet WP:NPROF. The article, in my opinion, did not meet WP:GNG but certainly did meet WP:SNG as pointed out by my colleagues later on, which was again, a lapse in my judgement.
I appreciate your advice regarding speedies you gave last year and worked on improving, having zero speedy declines since then. I took time to evaluate each subject with more time, so as to understand my misunderstandings of the criteria (and also, SNGs where applicable). With thanks. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Follow-up question
4.1. Do you see any other problems with those edits, especially the first two? Would you make them again? If so, why? If not, why not? Regards SoWhy 21:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
A: Criteria for speedy deletion is a complex policy where every clause has its own meaning and is subject to mistakes in its interpretation. To put it plainly, my latter two edits are definitely lapses in judgement and I would not make them again:
The Uche Odoputa speedy was challenged and it is generally assumed that if a challenge is speedied, it is better to move to a deletion discussion to determine inclusion. I did not, as I was working under the assumption that the subject surely did not have any "credible claim of significance", due to my misunderstanding of what a credible claim is, as I explained further below. The correct action would have been to submit it to AfD when challenged instead of restoring the tag, I let it be after I was challenged twice. I did some further reading over the next week then and it was indeed correct that sources were not required at all for a credible claim of significance.
I submitted Nail H. Ibragimov to AfD without following WP:BEFORE, where it would certainly have passed the check for WP:SNGs, as was pointed out by all of my colleagues. The correct action would be a proper application of WP:BEFORE where it would have saved the community's time as well as my own.
As for the first edit, some editors might consider it bad taste to nominate an article at AfD for speedy deletion, but CSD specifically states: Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. Until the article was rewritten completely, sourced with all promotional language removed, the general viewpoint at AfD was for deletion. Per the criterion stated under CSD#G11, the article at the time of nomination met both the cruxes: "exclusively promotional" and "requiring a fundamental rewrite". Furthermore, noting that the article was deleted for meeting the aforementioned criterion by Jimfbleak — all of which indicate it was the correct decision. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I am aware of the mistakes I made and make in the area, and hence, will commit to understanding policies before exercising my administrative tools in this area. I will look to gain sufficient experience before going head-first into making calls on CSD and AfD (as has been pointed out to me before). For now, I hope to contribute to Misplaced Pages by dealing with sockpuppets and tagging articles for deletion. It is fair to say that I am not a perfect editor but I will actively try to not repeat my old mistakes and welcome all editors to discuss my shortcomings, so as to I am aware of where I should seek to put effort in. -qedk (t 桜 c) 12:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Additional question from Phil Bridger
5. Do you still believe, as you did 8 months ago, that sources are needed to get past speedy deletion criterion A7 and that sources have to be in English to contribute to notability?
A: If I remember correctly, I said that the sources were not reliable (and leaning on the edge of very unreliable at that) and do not amount to a "credible claim of signficance" (emphasis mine). It's the same way that if Breitbart writes a hit piece on Sanders, we do not use it for factual information or anything at all. Sources are not required (but ideal) to establish a credible claim, my belief then was misplaced in the fact that no notability was asserted, which was the lapse in my judgement I cited above, as a credible claim does not need to be sourced in the first place — which would make it ineligible for CSD#A7.
To quote myself, ...quite obvious problem with sources in Czech is that it's infinitely more difficult to ascertain source content and reliability. I never said sources have to be in English to contribute to notability, but I did say, Czech sources (which are in Czech) are barely reliable, which was owing to my difficult experience with trying to determine reliability of Central European language sources and would much rather utilize only the most reliable and well-known sources.
I do not think that articles need sources to not meet A7, nor that sources have to be in English to contribute to notability, but I think it is often much easier with reliable sources and English sources to pass the two hurdles respectively. I failed in effectively communicating my issues hereto, for which I apologize. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Additional questions from Carrite
6 Have you ever used or are you currently using any other alternate accounts, or is this your only Misplaced Pages account?
A: Currently, I am not using any alternate accounts. I retain access to only two alternate accounts, QEDKbot and AnkitBot. I used to have a döppelganger account c. 2015, which I requested to be vanished (it had no edits), I do not possess the credentials for that account (username or password). --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
7. I notice from your edit history an uneven record of participation, including a number of multi-month dry spells in which you edited very little or not at all at En-WP, including, for example, a total of 50 edits for the four month period May through August 2018, and a total of 24 edits for June through November 2015. What was the cause of these (and other unlisted) pauses from very active editing? Do you anticipate being a very active editor moving forward, as you have been over the last year or so?
A: Most of times I am on a hiatus are due to real-life commitments. To answer your question, the reason I was inactive in the 2018 period you cited was because of multiple reasons: coursework, events and family issues. The 2015 hiatus was due to complications with an Inspire program (Wikimedia project) which I was eventually not a part of, as well as ensuing coursework. Feel free to ask me to elaborate if you so require. I can surely make a commitment to be active, I've been moderately active every year I've been on the English Misplaced Pages (excepting 2010) and I hope I can continue doing the same. It is important to take note of the fact that we are all volunteers and we all have other commitments to attend to, Misplaced Pages should be a place where you enjoy contributing and not a place where you are compelled to edit, that is my opinion. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Additional questions from John M Wolfson
8. An editor creates an article on an elementary school that entirely comprises material copied and pasted from that school's website. What criterion for speedy deletion applies, and in particular which criterion/a do(es) not apply?
A: From my experience, school websites will typically not have copyright status mentioned or have something along the lines of "All rights reserved". That would mean that it is copyright infringement to have the aforementioned content in the article, hence making it eligible for WP:CSD#G12 criterion (unless the content is explicitly released under public domain or a compatible license). The most pertinent criterion that would definitely not apply would be WP:CSD#A7, as entailed here and, non-article namespace and redirect speedy deletion criteria.
Other criteria that should not apply would be (in order of relevance):
  • G6 (technical deletions), G13 (abandoned drafts and AfC submissions), G14 (unnecessary disambiguation pages)
  • A5 (transwikied articles), A9 (unimportant musical recording), A11 (obviously invented), X2 (created by the content translation tool)
May not apply (in order of relevance):
  • A1 (no context), A3 (no content), if copied information cannot be used to determine context and if copied information is not any content but links, etc. respectively.
  • G9 (office), if deletion is via a takedown notice served to WMF Legal.
  • G1 (patent nonsense), G2 (test page), G3 (vandalism and hoaxes), G10 (attack page), unlikely that the website would contain content of this manner but if the page was indiscriminately copied, it is possible.
  • A10 (duplicate article), if another article on the school already exists.
  • A2 (foreign language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project), less plausible since copyvios cannot exist on any WMF project per Terms of Use, but a lot of projects have weaker copyvio auditing than the English Misplaced Pages, so a possibility nonetheless.
The following criteria can also apply (again in order of relevance):
  • G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion), it is very likely that website content will be promotional as that is the sole intention of the website, it seeks to promote the subject of the article.
  • G8 (Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page), if the said article has a talk page, it can be deleted under G8 should the article also qualify for speedy deletion.
Apart from the above, G4 (recreation of deleted material), G5 (creation by blocked/banned users) and G7 (author requests deletion) can apply in their respective cases.
I hope that covers it, feel free to ask me to elaborate on any of the above rationales or point out if there's anything that I might have missed. With thanks. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
9. Is office.bomis.com an appropriate username?
A: Per WP:UPOL, "office.bomis.com" can be classified as a promotional username (WP:ORGNAME, since the URL/name of the company is the username) as well as usernames implying shared use (WP:ISU, since the username is the URL/name of the company with no singular person specified), thus making this an inappropriate username. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Additional question from Atsme
10. Why would anyone not support you for adminship? Talk 📧 04:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
A: It is not often that I'm asked to sabotage my own ship, but heck, why not. At the risk of being too honest, I can say with absolute certainty, I will not be the perfect administrator, I will almost certainly protect the the right (wrong) version and I will make mistakes. But the commitment I can make is to make sure that I listen to everyone who pitches in to tell me where I'm going wrong and work actively to correct it.
Right now, I do not think that I am the perfect embodiment of what an editor on Misplaced Pages should be, and I probably won't be in the future, but I've gotten here only because I read and I listened. Sometimes, you just have to be boring and slow and realize that even if the greater purpose is the improvement of the encyclopedia, you should enjoy what you are doing. So that's what I'll keep doing. Best, qedk (t 桜 c) 17:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Additional question from SilkTork
11. Looking back at Talk:Michael_Jackson/Archive_36#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_11_December_2019, and at the sources used: for the statue and for the production delay, do you still feel that the request to present that material in a more neutral, informative and balanced manner was achieved? Looking again, do you feel that the section as it still stands, follows WP:NPOV or is it, as the requester is suggesting, pointing the reader to a negative conclusion by leaving out valuable information and by presenting the media's implications in Misplaced Pages voice as fact? SilkTork (talk) 10:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC) Added: Our article on the rescheduled show, MJ: The Musical, uses this source to explain the delay: , which uses the same reason as the NYT, though omits the implication by association that the cancellation was due to the sexual allegations. One (or both) articles are therefore potentially incorrect. SilkTork (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
A: In a way, everything we write is inherently biased, in the way that we all have pre-formed notions that subsist without us wanting to or not. The English Misplaced Pages is biased towards whatever the majority of its editors want it to be. It is probably most prevalent in the Manual of Style, where stylizations can be be based on arbitrariness or sometimes, a very planned logical path as well. In that regard, an absolute neutral point of view is probably impossible to attain. What we can do, ofcourse, is to try our best to achieve NPOV in that regard. I've encountered a lot of edit requests which state, "If you're gonna state X, state Y as well" to which my de-facto reply has always been to ask for reliable sources for the same. If the editor provides the same, all good, or else, I certainly will not include it, and I certainly will not remove the already reliably sourced information. NPOV is important, but it does not make sense to do so over losing verifiability. In this particular case, the current section as it stands is completely verifiable and as such, does not violate NPOV. The crux of the edit request was to remove the part regarding the delayed musical as it was scheduled in 2020, which was probably a mix-up, which I fixed, as it referred to the developmental lab. The part regarding the statue is a direct quote from a reliable source and would have made no sense to remove reliably sourced information to accomodate the passionate fans of Michael Jackson. To me, the truth is the NPOV, and reliable sources are the closest I can get to truth, apart from actually knowing it.
Conflict between sources is fairly prevalent in articles, and a lot of the times inclusion of all information available is not possible. I encountered this problem with April 2016 Kabul attack and 2019 India doctors' strike where multiple sources would report the same incident differently. The ideal way is to evaluate the best sources at hand, and if the sources are all generally reliable, it probably makes sense to pick the latest report. If the sources are generally reliable and it is possible to include two viewpoints which aren't directly contradictory, it also makes sense to include some or most of them. Local (or regional) sources of whose reliability is doubtful can be included for those areas where we are getting a generally reliable source as well. It probably makes sense to evaluate them on a case-by-case basis. In this certain case however, I would certainly rank a NYT report over a Broadway.com piece, especially when the NYT report was written by Michael Paulson, who was part of the Boston Globe team whose coverage of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church won the 2003 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service.
Many apologies for the long-winded answer, but I hope that covered all bases. Feel free to ask me to clarify. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

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

RfA/RfB toolbox
Counters
Analysis
Cross-wiki
Support
  1. Trusted user. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA 13:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. Not a jerk, has clue, no issues. I am particularly impressed with his recent work in establishing templates and user messages for partial blocks, a feature that I have long supported. Ritchie333 13:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Was waiting for this. 💴Money💶💵emoji💷 13:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  4. I’ve been hoping for this for a while. QEDK is a sensible user who will make good use of the tools. He’s consistently a stable and independent voice in community discussions, and in the areas he works in is trusted. Giving him the tools would be nothing but a net-positive for the community, and I’m extremely happy to support. We need more administrators who are willing to be independent voices, and I’m confident QEDK will be one. I look forward to him being on the team. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  5. I've seen them about the place, and no concerns.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  6. SPI clerk is, on its own, a functional demonstration of "has a clue", and I've not seen QEDK being a jerk, so happy to support. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  7. I wouldn't usually support a candidate who "confesses"  ;) to writing one of the worse sentences ever but their total and utter reasonableness concerning the matter and swift movement to resolve it is an object lesson in why QEDK is worthy of the tools. Technical ability to wield them—while important—is irrelevant compared with the attitude and composure to do so positively and productively. As it goes, I would've supported them anyway, but it's very pleasant indeed to have an example of the qualities they need, demonstrated so willingly and casually. Incidentally, and for the record, I find the opposes unconvincing. ——SN54129 13:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. They are already an admin. (Wait ... am I wrong?) Steel1943 (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  9. Yes And I am quite fond of partial blocks to boot. Lectonar (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  10. Support "Already an admin"(TM). The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  11. Support. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  12. Support on grounds of"what do you mean you aren't an admin already?" Competent, plays well with others, no major issues I'm aware of. a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 14:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  13. Support, {{subst:thoughtyouwereone}} ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  14. Sure. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  15. Surprised support. —Kusma (t·c) 15:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  16. 100000000% Support (pretty much the Strongest support ever given to a person in the existence of this universe). Didn't even have to read the nominations to jump straight to support. Literally all it took was for me to read "QEDK" on the RfX report for me to support. Never disagreed with QEDK on any admin assistance matter at SPI. If I have not already made it clear I support him, then read the above again. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 15:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
    And to clarify, I see QEDK as a trustworthy editor, who 100% needs the tools. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 15:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  17. Certainly one of our most trustworthy users. Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  18. Support Other than being a competent editor, having to receive the EFH right requires a great amount of technical experience and general knowledge on Misplaced Pages. And then the amount of trust this user right requires. I think these are the reasons why everyone is calling QEDK an admin already. Jerm (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  19. Support as co-nom. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  20. Support Hard to find any minimal issue + We need more admins from India/S.E. Asia. ∯WBG 15:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  21. Support I'm kind of new here but from what I've seen he seems like a really nice guy and a good candidate for admin. Flalf (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  22. Support will be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  23. 'Support per Dreamy Jazz. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  24. Been hoping for this for a long while! A good voice who can be trusted to use the tools positively. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  25. Support. Dekimasuよ! 16:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  26. Support. Excellent work in sockpuppet investigations. — Newslinger talk 16:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  27. Support - Absolutely, very good and trusted user. Good luck. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  28. Support - a long awaited RFA! Cabayi (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  29. Sure thing. — 🦊 16:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  30. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  31. Support- Won't break the project. I say hand the mop.   Aloha27  talk  17:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  32. Support Has a clear need for the tools and will be an asset on the admin team. Schwede66 18:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  33. Support - Trusted and experienced editor, I see no red flags here, Easy support. –Davey2010 18:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  34. Support I have seen them working at SPI and think they do a good job. They have been responsible with their current toolset, and I think they would continue that with the admin tools. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  35. Valid concerns have been raised in the general comments about the nominator's subtle wrongthink, but I can overlook this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  36. Support. Yes, seen them around (esp. AIV), and no concerns. Great to have admins from India/SE Asia. Britishfinance (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  37. Support A level-headed editor who has a clear need for the tools. And I've been saying this a lot recently, but dang I thought they already were an admin...CaptainEek ⚓ 19:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  38. Support - Definitely competent enough to use the tools responsibly. Kirbanzo  20:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  39. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 20:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  40. Support – certainly a net positive. –FlyingAce 20:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  41. Support Yes, please! OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  42. Support – Well-qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  43. Support Another "Wait aren't they an admin"? nomination. Definitely will be a good hand. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  44. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  45. Support--Ymblanter (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  46. I have followed QEDK's work for several years now and have been in nearly all cases thoroughly impressed. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  47. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  48. Support. 'bout time. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  49. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  50. Support - another one I was looking forward to. Excellent candidate, clue and temperament and all that. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  51. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  52. Support Clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  53. Support. Ah, shoot. @QEDK: What a bad time for me to have gone on a semi-wikibreak. I missed out on being the first support! –MJL ‐Talk‐ 23:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  54. Support Trustworthy editor, trustworthy noms. Good answers to questions. I've seen them around, and like what I've seen. Miniapolis 23:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  55. Support Passes all my RfA standards as far as I can tell, and I have enough direct experience of the candidate to trust with the tools. The anti-sock work is a big plus; if one is going to get right into the "policing", that (on today's WP versus, say, in 2005) is where to focus. I'm not concerned with months-ago CSD interpretation glitches; that stuff is easy to get right with some "study", especially after previous errors are learned from. Good temperament and clearly here to work on an encyclopedia, not to generate drama (matters a lot to me). Does enough content work for me, even if not a GA/FA churner (we need stubs turned into proper articles far more than we need people polishing chrome on great articles to make them "extra-great").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  56. Suppport per SMcCandlish, per nom statements (These are two admins I am in awe of.) Per other support rationales. One should know how to pace oneself. Still a net positive. Seen 'm around. ANd, adminship needn't be a big deal. Oh, I just had an issue concerning regionalism. So, per Winged Blades of Godric as well-- a rare and precious gift.-- Deepfriedokra 23:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)*
  57. Support Qualified, trusted and well suited for adminship. If QEDK turns out to be operating a UPE ring I will eat my shoes. Vexations (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  58. Support Another very solid candidate with no red or yellow flags and an impressive history of contributions to the project. Almost certain to be a net positive with the tools. The two opposes are not persuasive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  59. Support Well-qualified and all-around candidate. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  60. Support Will be a net positive to the project as an admin. SportingFlyer T·C 03:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  61. QEDK should enhance the project thanks to their experience and positive disposition. It would be a pleasure to have them be a sysop here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  62. Support - .will put the admin tools to good use and help build the encyclopedia. Gizza 04:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  63. Support; I'm concerned about the answer to the G11 part of Q4, as G11 is supposed to be for pages that are exclusively promotional. However, I am confident that QEDK will be a net positive to the admin corps. J947 , at 04:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  64. Support - most likely to be a net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  65. Support Clear need for the tools, very active and trusted in areas where they could be put to good use. GirthSummit (blether) 10:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  66. Support - Have no issues, seems to benefit from the tools. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 13:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  67. Support They alredy have proven themselves with the bucket, they can carrry the mop. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  68. Support. I've been offline for a couple of days, and when I come back I see three RfAs in progress. And each one is an obvious support just through seeing who the candidate is. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  69. Support I don't see any glaring issues. ~EDDY ~ 15:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  70. Support No red flags observed. So why the hell not? Celestina007 (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  71. Support No problems here. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  72. Support for easily meeting my minimums and nothing convincing seen in opposing !votes. Ifnord (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  73. Support Willing to accept criticism with civility and admit mistakes is huge. --valereee (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  74. Support, definitely a good choice. BD2412 T 22:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  75. Support has a clue, clearly responds well to criticism. I'm not thrilled with their response to question #5, but not to the point where I think it's necessary to oppose. signed, Rosguill 22:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  76. Support No concerns. -- ferret (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  77. Support – clear need for the tools, and well qualified. – bradv🍁 00:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  78. Support Long-time trusted editor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  79. Support - not a jerk, has a clue. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  80. Support - Definitely, it's time when one should replace their set of permissions with sysop. QueerEcofeminist 09:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  81. Support - Easy decision. Orphan Wiki 10:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  82. Support - no concerns here. the wub "?!" 14:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  83. Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  84. Level-headed. El_C 19:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  85. Support, will be a useful admin. Why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BEANS X2 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  86. Support - Long overdue Razer(talk) 19:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  87. Support - If the SPI folks trust him with the admin tools, I'm happy to trust their judgment. Thanks for volunteering to help out. Ajpolino (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  88. Support: clear use for the tools and seeing no temperament concerns or other issues. — Bilorv (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  89. Support – Kurtis 02:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  90. Support One of the few names that are "I thought he's an admin already". OhanaUnited 03:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  91. Support Why not? -FASTILY 03:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  92. Support All the best. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 07:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  93. Capable and trusted. AGK ■ 07:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  94. Support. Friendly, and can be trusted with the tools. Rehman 16:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  95. Support - the reason you think QEDK is already an admin is because of all the work he's shouldering at SPI. There's been a hanger for him in the mop closet for years, he just needed to ask. Ivanvector (/Edits) 17:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  96. Support Clear need and qualification for the tools. Taewangkorea (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  97. Support: good candidate. JohnThorne (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  98. Support - The times I've seen QEDK around, I've found them to have generally good judgment. Doing a bit of research before supporting just confirmed as much. — Rhododendrites \\ 05:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  99. Support. Why not. Conlinp (talk) 09:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  100. Support - I've always found QEDK to be a reasonable editor, and believe he will be a fair and thoughtful administrator. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  101. Support - We need more admins who realize that their judgment is not perfect, but who are able to perform at a high level, even when scrutinized by admins who believe their own judgement to be perfect. - MrX 🖋 12:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  102. Support. No issues here. Meets my criteria. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  103. Support Positive interactions with the candidate at AIV; will be a great benefit to the project with the tools. Spencer 15:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  104. Support - competent editor; no concerns from me. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  105. Support can be trusted with a mop --DannyS712 (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  106. No apparent issues. Best of luck in your new role! – Juliancolton |  21:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  107. Support Good stats on AfD, comfortable on Misplaced Pages namespace pages, etc. Seems to have a clue. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  108. Weak support. No major issues, but the number of instances that they got policies wrong makes me wonder. I'd rather see them not close deletion discussions for the time being, perhaps for another 3 months or so, while actively learning about the process. — kashmīrī  23:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  109. Support No concerns, valid need for advanced tools, seems trustworthy. Demetrius Tremens (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  110. Support - No concerns and I thought they were already an admin! -- Dane 01:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  111. Support Adding the tolls to QEDK's repertoire will be a benefit to the 'pedia. MarnetteD|Talk 03:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  112. Support Sir Joseph 03:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  113. Support. I like the candidate's answers to 4.1 and 10, which indicate an ability to reflect and learn from their mistakes. Also, I haven't looked at the templates specifically, but I like the template work cited by User talk:Ritchie333. Airbornemihir (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  114. Support. This is useful editor. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  115. Support, a trusted editor. SarahSV 21:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  116. Support absolutely, a long time coming. Convincing answer on Q10 as well. SITH (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  117. Support and happy to have the opportunity. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  118. Support, working in areas that are difficult without the full toolkit for so long is something to be lauded, looks like a sensible editor who will be a plus amongst the mopsters. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  119. Support – valuable addition. Cavalryman (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC).
  120. Support. 4550 mainspace edits is good. AfD accuracy is very high, !votes seem OK, the high proportion of "delete" !votes is surely a simple selection bias. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  121. Support I got to know QEDK a bit during SPI clerk training and occasionally on some Arbitration related matters. While we have not necessarily agreed on absolutely everything, I have found QEDK's input thoughtful and helpful. I think QEDK would make a fine administrator. Mkdw 02:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  122. Support - Oh, hell yeah. ~Swarm~ 03:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  123. Support, has a clue, great candidate. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  124. Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  125. Support, will be fine. Fish+Karate 11:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  126. Support - experienced editor. Tolly4bolly 11:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  127. Support - no concerns, will be an asset. Carcharoth (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  128. Good luck! Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  129. Support: Some of the oppose comments gave me pause. However I think the candidate will address those concerns. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose, per criteria. GregJackP Boomer! 19:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
    Moved discussion to Talk.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, per handling and answering to Q4 re the G11 at the time of my !vote here: . The CSD of a long standing article is generally not to be preferred and when it is at WP:AFD it can almost be seen as an attempt to !supervote bypassing, albeit there will be admin scrutiny, and that CSD at AfD is permitted. Problems with the answer includes not noting historic versions has been considered, not considering it was at AfD and not considering the article was retained after improvement. Would like to see a lack of concerns in the CSD/AfD this area over a period of six months when I might support a renom. Although I oppose I note others of standing support the candidate so candidate is likely doing a lot of good work and wish to support candidate generally in that; I just consider this area to be important.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Poor understanding of the deletion system, as brought out by the questions by SoWhy & Phil Bridger, especially in concert with limited content contributions (eg started two stubs & a start in 2019). I'm particularly unimpressed with the speedy–prod–AfD in May–June 2019 on Nail H. Ibragimov, a mathematician whose notability is apparent from the start. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Espresso Addict. I cannot support a candidate who does not appear to have a firm grasp of our speedy deletion policies. P-K3 (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Espresso Addict. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  6. Oppose I agree with the concerns shared by the above. My own searches (e.g. recent CSD of Utpal Shanghvi Global School (While an AfD was on), Jim Boucher and others) leads me to think that the candidate cannot be fully trusted with admin tools at this time. I do believe that we should have more admins from other time zones, but that should not come at the cost of quality of adminship. If the RfA succeeds, I would suggest the user to not use the admin bits in speedy deletions.--DBigXrayᗙ 18:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC) (updated) 19:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
    Hello DBigXray, can you tell me the issue with my CSD nomination of Jim Boucher, if that's alright with you? --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks, struck. I failed to notice this was another version. The deleted version is not visible to me. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
    No worries! --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
    I checked it, and can confirm it was obvious promotion. Definitely a good G11 tag. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
    Boucher is already struck. Thanks for checking the deleted version. In addition to the CSDs, there are problems with AfDs as well. Superficially the AfD log looks quite impressive, but digging deep into all the votes in AfDs of last six months I find most being piling up /WP:JUSTAPOLICY type votes. AfD/2019 Hauz Qazi clash was interesting case that was spammed with Keep from IPs/SPAs and QEDK also piled on with a keep but all other experienced editors unanimously voted Delete. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
    I fail to see your point. WP:AADD is just an arbitrary collection of arguments that some editors think other editors should avoid, there is no reason to think that's a valid argument for stating any argument in a certain way. It is not a bad essay but to follow it blindly without a grain of salt is cause for concern. WP:JUSTAPOLICY is probably the most fallacious, since while writing a reasonable summary can help, if you do not point out which exact policy the article is failing or passing, it is probably equivalent to saying "I want to keep/delete this article" without stating the reason why this encyclopedia should keep or not keep it. I also categorically contest your claim that most of my votes are pile-on, here's just a spot check of the most recent five:
    It is possible that some of my very old votes at AfD are pile-on, but I've never done so in a manner that is against policy, I also do not see the general argument in dissing all pile-on votes (although stat-padding is legitimate concern), every editor cannot be the first or second to make an argument or vote in an AfD. Coming to address your concern about the AfD you cited, multiple experienced editors were also on the "Keep" side of the arguments, some of them switched sides later, I just never returned to the AfD. I just considered it to be of general newsworthiness at the time I was aware of the news reports (which gradually turned out to be pretty much nothing), I just didn't go back to change my vote even though the general incident had died down, since I was preoccupied with other things. I do not appreciate the insinuations you make when you state ..was interesting case that was spammed with Keep from IPs/SPAs and QEDK also piled on with a keep.., I'd rather appreciate you state your concerns directly and I'll be sure to clear it up for you. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per That's a non-admin closure of something which is inches away from ANI, far from "consensus".
    WT:WikiProject Ships#Capitalisation (yet again)
    Talk:Motor Torpedo Boat#Requested move 12 January 2020
    Talk:Motor Torpedo Boat#Requested move 20 October 2013
    Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Very low article creation, and high delete !votes count at AfD and a rather uninspiring 25% participation in main space. An administrator should be a content and editor protector: creating content and protecting content shows that an editor is here for that purpose. We are creating an encyclopedia. Lightburst (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Well said. I am no fan of deletion monkeys. Still I see him as a net positive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)  
Neutral
  1. Neutral. The answers to Q4 are too disturbing to support this comfortably. The candidate seems to have completely missed the fact that speedy deletion is only applicable if all revisions are eligible for speedy deletion and with the G11 example, they spent a lot of time analyzing the current state at the time of their tagging but no time on the state it was before. With the A7 one, I expected a clear acknowledgment that anyone except the creator can in good faith remove a speedy tag, even if it was correct. That said, the candidacy looks solid otherwise and the candidate has indicated no desire to venture into CSD anytime soon and appears capable enough to learn the required skills. Regards SoWhy 18:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  2. Neutral doesn't meet my content creation expectations and am also concerned about the answers to Q4. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  3. Neutral leaning to support I am a bit concern with the mistake made to nominate Nail H. Ibragimov for deletion, as I found it a bit hasty. Otherwise, it seems that the candidate has a solid history on SPI and will be a good addition. Lulusword (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
General comments