Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/DeltaQuad

DeltaQuad

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (58/1/0); Scheduled to end 01:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Self-Nomination

DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 
I've been an admin since May 2011, making me about 8 years into moping up the messes. I recently left the Arbitration Committee after 4 years of service, and have now joined the Ombudsman Commission. I'm not as old as some admins, but not new to the job either. In that time, I have explored multiple areas on Wikipedia, and held multiple positions. (my resume) Each year, I learn more and more, and the day I stop learning, is the day I need to leave Wikipedia. Ever since I've started, my role has been more a backend role. 'Crats mission is to fill that backend role. The role requires a fair amount of experience and neutrality. My work closing RfCs, XfDs and other relevant forums highlights the most of my experience. As far as my neutrality goes, if I have a predisposed opinion, I don't express it on Wikipedia, and remove myself from the discussion. These two things put together are my strong suits. As you will see below, I'm always willing to listen, observe and discuss issues that arise. Whether it's as horrible as child protection, or as simple as helping an admin figure out if they should delete a page, I'm here for both discussions. -- Amanda (aka DQ)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A: I have read several crat chats about how consensus is obtained. The most recent one I found is this one which appears to be the only crat chat in 2018. Wizardman correctly highlights that content and conduct very broadly make up votes in an RFA. The criteria to promote is one simple, but hard to answer question, does the community have faith in the administrator? Now 'crats given numerical ranges to guide their decision, but it's never just about the numbers. The key part is examining the comments of the community and weighing where their actual trust lies in all aspects of being an admin.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A: "Contentious" is almost a loaded word for RfA. RfAs can easily become contentious. Almost always, if you feel it's going to be contentious, then you need a 'crat chat. That doesn't mean that everyone has to go through a crat chat. At minimum though, crats should leave an explanation upon closure of why they closed it the way they did. It's just the same way we close contentious RfCs, with a solid and transparent explanation of why we did what we did if there is concern it may be criticized.

3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A: As I exhibited in my time as a member of the Arbitration Committee, I routinely had to review policies that I was unfamiliar with. Even policies you are familiar with, you find yourself reading over and over and over again. It doesn't hurt ever to re-review existing policy, especially in proposed policy changed. I have always been willing to explain my decisions, and engage users to a reasonable extent. Sometimes it becomes clear I was wrong, other times, it's a suggestion. I always take the time to look back over my decisions to make sure I have made the right decision, reflect, and use that to improve for the future. When it comes to fairness in bureaucrats, there needs to be a review of all the factors and input on a discussion before it's closure or action is taken. Taking the time to read through this input is critical.

---

Additional questions from DannyS712

4. If you had been a bureaucrat at the time, how would you have responded to the re-sysop requested at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 40#Resysop request (Master Jay)?

A: I absolutely hate these hindsight 20:20 questions where users are involved. I'm not here to be critical of the discussion that community and crats had, so i'll just speak of the result. The 'Crats at the end of the day made the right call by following policy. It appears the trust they gave Jay was absolutely appropriate. Even if it wasn't, the 'crats noticeboard is not the place to remove rights for lack of trust. That needs a lot more.

5. Among the additional rights granted to bureaucrats are the abilities to mark accounts as bots (or copyvio bots) and to make admins interface administrators. To what extend do you plan on being active in regards to granting these rights?

A: The extent in which I plan on handling these requests, I plan to handle them. I've been through the BRFA process with my own bot, I know how to wikicode, and I know the implications of handing out bot or interface admin flags.

---

Additional question from Dekimasu

6. Should an RFA !vote by an editor in good standing ever be struck? If so, under what conditions?

A: Frankly, a simple no should do. Every editor (in good standing) is allowed to have their opinion heard whether I, or any other editor thinks it belongs at an RfA or not. That said, 5P4 comes to mind about reminders I find some people could use with their comments. If we are going to wade into the outing or BLP attacks, well that's just straight redaction and removal, not striking.

---

Additional question from Hhkohh

7. Why did you have 3 RfA to become an admin?

A:

---

Additional question from Nosebagbear

8. 'Crats obviously frequently disagree with each on Crat Chats. This is generally good. In the last few Chats, are there any where you would have !voted in opposition to the ultimate judgement of consensus, and why?

A:

Additional question from Amorymeltzer

9. This is cribbing a bit, but is there a memorable moment on-wiki where you changed your mind, whether through new evidence or strength of argument? I'm not looking for good or bad closes, but rather something that might show how you assess your own assessments and thought process. Not limited to discussions you have closed.

A:

Discussion

RfBs for this user:

• Requests for bureaucratship/DeltaQuad

• 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 her contributions before commenting.

Support

1. Hell yes SQL^{Query me!} 01:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Support First, on the broader topic: while there may be an argument that we don't need the crat group at all anymore, the group currently exists, and there is unlikely to ever be a consensus to get rid of it on en.wiki. If we're going to have it, it is important to have users who are familiar with the active community and know how it works, rather than just users who know the community of 15 years ago.
   Of active users who could do this role, Amanda is one of the best. Amanda is a behind the scenes worker, but is honestly one of the model admins and functionaries on this project. She is always willing to lend a hand to new admins and functionaries, but is also willing to speak up and voice concerns in an independent way when there is an issue. Her selection to the ombudsman commission this year I think reflects how much faith the movement as a whole has in her, and I think she would be the model bureaucrat. Strongest possible support. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Support Per Tony and also SQL --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
4. Support I would love to see crats actually do their responsibility of clerking at RfA rather than having "just" sysops do it. Regardless of this hope DeltaQuad would perform the role entirely in a manner that is in keeping with policies, guidelines, and community expectations. Thank you for volunteering for service in this way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
5. No concerns, highly qualified/trusted. --Rschen7754 01:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
6. Absolutely clearly qualified for the job. Home Lander (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
7. yes Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
8. Support – highly qualified candidate, and well respected by the community. Bradv🍁 01:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
9. Support trusted, competent ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
10. Of course. — 🦊 01:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
11. Honestly kind of overqualified. Mz7 (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
12. Support trusted and capable. Jianhui67 ^T★C 01:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
13. Support - Always happy to see another member of the Canadian Cabal™ elevated to high office. Tony raises an important point re: the need for crats. The entire workload could easily be handled by stewards. However, I think there is value added in having active local users involved in local advanced permissions management, and along those lines would be happy to see some newer and active community members enter the crat ranks. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
14. Stephen 01:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
15. Support: eminently well-qualified and willing to do the dirty work--a rare combination. à votre santé! Marquardtika (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
16. Support Absolutely -FASTILY 01:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
17. Support Natureium (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
18. Support. Trusted. Good judgment. They don't come better than this. Antandrus (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
19. Support why not? Good luck.--Mona.N (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
20. Support With pleasure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
21. Sure. J947 ^(c), at 02:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
22. Support, absolutely. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
23. Support
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
24. Support Of course, DQ is a well-trusted member of the community. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Comments · Changes} 03:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
25. Strong support. The recent compromised account desysop (by a steward because there were no crats that could immediately process) shows that we can always benefit from more crats. I should also note that of the 15 current crats who have a gender officially set, all are male. Let’s fix this, and fast. Oh, and not a jerk and has a clue and has been a good admin and all that. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 03:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
26. Strong Support - With absolutely zero hesitation. Thorough, rational, and not afraid to make difficult calls when necessary. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
27. Support - FitIndia ^Talk 03:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
28. Wow yes. Yes please. And thank you. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
29. Support DeltaQuad is easily among our most respected admins and functionaries, and she's one of my personal favourites. We're running out of hats to give her... but this one definitely makes sense :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
30. Support Why not? Double sharp (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
31. Support I'm on the hype train! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
32. Support Easy call. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
33. support Meh, lourdes comment actually didn't make any sense, why vandalism only IP should be tolerated?--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 04:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
34. Support experienced candidate, trusted and qualified --DannyS712 (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
35. Obvious support Trusted user, good track record, level headed, responsible, I could go on. ~Awilley (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
36. Support: well qualified and trusted user. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
37. Strong support - Known her for awhile, and nothing seems to have changed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
38. Support. Obviously. Mkdw ^talk 05:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
39. Support and kudos for putting up with a RFB just to get an extra bit that, IMO, doesn't do much. It's a dull job but someone has to do it. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
40. Support lots of experience. sensible. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
41. Support Eight years of moping up the messes is as good as mopping them up in my book. Chetsford (talk) 06:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
42. Support. All-round qualified candidate. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
43. Support. The oppose by Lourdes is unconvincing. When a new "editor" has demonstrated that they are here only for the jollies of vandalism and there is zero evidence that the person has any interest in improving the encyclopedia, then a block is appropriate even after an administrator discovers the situation several hours later. DeltaQuad is experienced, competent, reliable and completely dedicated to the best interests of the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
44. Strong Support stwalkerster (talk) 07:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
45. Support. It's hard to imagine someone more experienced and more trustworthy. – Joe (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
46. Support No reason to think they'd misuse the extra tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
47. Support Can’t see any reason why not. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
48. Support, precious. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
49. Support. Experienced editor. Tolly4bolly 09:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
50. Support. Can't think of anyone better. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
51. I might be on a break at the moment, and probably shouldn't !vote a 'crat - but this is worth it. Strong Support Worm^TT(talk) 10:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
52. Support, good candidate. ϢereSpielChequers 10:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
53. Support - I can think of few Wikipedians more qualified.- MrX 🖋 10:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
54. Support - Are we supposed to reserve the "I thought she was already" comments for RFA? Cabayi (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
55. Support Gog the Mild (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
56. Support, all for more admins getting the extra couple of bits and freshening up the bureaucrat pool. Although that implies it's less of a pool and more of a stagnant pond. But a nice stagnant pond which doesn't smell bad and has happy frogs in it. More happy frogs, vote DeltaQuad. Fish+Karate 11:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
57. Support I can be quite critical of admins and arbs at times, but I've never had cause to criticise DeltaQuad for anything, so that's an easy support from me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
58. Support ♀ Per TonyB, BMK, PCoder and others + candidate's strong work ethic and history.  Spintendo  11:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Great respect for DQ and their past (including the arbcom legacy). I expect crats to follow procedure to the rote. DQ is not spectacular with that benchmark. While I expect that when IPs are reverted, they are advised on their talk page (something that DQ does not necessarily follow, e.g. here and here), I can overlook this issue. But probably I can't overlook blocks of DQ where IPs are blocked many hours just after their second warning; and that is when the IP has stopped editing after the second warning, e.g. here (or a new user here). Or blocks without a warning, like here (although honestly, I can't make out the foreign characters, and if those are a BLP attack or enough for a no-warning block, take this example out of my reasoning). Like I said, much respect for DQ, but given the need for clear communication with IPs (and editors) that we should maintain and the worry that crats may develop their own interpretations of policy, I can't support DQ's request as of now. Lourdes 03:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

   Not that you aren't entitled to your oppose !vote—you most certainly are—but can I just clarify that you are opposing this candidate purely for blocking someome before they had received four warnings? Or is there some other reason to oppose here? — 🦊 03:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

   Yes, in one example, for blocking an IP hours after the IP had stopped editing after their second warning. In another, for blocking an IP without even a warning. I'll be very uncomfortable with a crat who has a background like that. Lourdes 03:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

   This happens literally all the time. Is there anyone around that you would support for bureaucrat? — 🦊 04:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

   :) Probably you, if you treat me to a good lunch. Lourdes 04:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

   Just FYI, the reverts you listed do not need warnings since they seem to just be edit tests, typos, or accidents. Simply reverting and moving on for a single test is just fine in my opinion. The block without a warning is obviously some vandal who's been here before. (Random people aren't just going to stumble on the arbitration talk page and vandalize it.) Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

   Sure. If Wikipedia now supports the philosophy that IPs, which have stopped editing after their second warning, can be blocked hours after by random administrators, I probably have to read up more. Lourdes 04:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

   And welcome back Reaper; good to see you back into editing. Lourdes 04:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

   If we are being sticklers about procedure here, I will note that nothing in the blocking policy prevents an administrator from exercising their discretion and blocking a user even if they have not been warned or even if they have not edited since their most recent warning, as long as doing so would credibly protect the project from potential harm. Admins at WP:AIV may choose to decline a report for this reason, but there is no explicit procedure that obligates this—in fact, WP:Vandalism affirms that warnings are by no means a prerequisite for blocking a vandal. Mz7 (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

   Yeah, but normally, if an IP or a new user has been warned and they have stopped editing (after just the 2nd warning), I don't think admins would come around after many hours and block the IP or new user (as DQ did in cases like [1] or [2]). I wouldn't do that (except for of course BLP or other concerns). In fact, if you were to see a report at AIV where a user would have reported this IP or the new editor for blocking after two warnings, you would have rejected the report mentioning that the IP or editor hasn't edited after their warnings, no? But if you and others are ok with DQ or any other administrator going ahead with blocking such IPs or new editors, that's your choice and we can discuss that whenever we need to. Lourdes 05:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

   As I said over on ANI, "Regarding warnings, the correct number of minimum warnings to give to a vandal before a block is ZERO. Per WP:VANDALISM : "Vandalism is prohibited. While editors are encouraged to warn and educate vandals, warnings are by no means a prerequisite for blocking a vandal." If you put obscenities supporting the Third Reich in an article, you get blocked, I don't care how many Twinkle warnings you have or don't have, you get the hell off this site right now." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)