Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/DeltaQuad

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for bureaucratship. Please do not modify it.

DeltaQuad

Final (229/6/2); Closed as successful by — xaosflux Talk and User:Nihonjoe (who kept edit conflicting each other) at 01:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Self-Nomination

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
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
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: My first RfA was when I was new and I didn't know enough about Wikipedia, and was mostly a
WP:NOTNOW
RfA. My second RfA showed there was still a concern that I wasn't in touch with the relevant policies, nor did I have the required judgement levels that admins needed. On my third RfA, I asked one of the people who opposed my second RfA, and most !votes reflected their opposition, and came through that one successful.
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: As I've noted elsewhere I'm not a fan of hindsight 20:20, and therefore am not going to identify which ones specifically I would disagree with the ultimate judgement on. Also no one wants to hear "You should have been failed" or "You should of been passed" especially when there is nothing to change the outcome. I do do my homework, so I did look through an undisclosed number to find one person that should have been promoted and one that shouldn't have been promoted. So why? Well. It's all about how you read and interpret what the community says. That is based on the current community norms that exist also. I felt that the two I disagreed with ran outside of the community norms of RfA expectations at the time of the RfA. Honestly, part of that I feel is due to the longer history of RFA before 2010 and how it was viewed then. This wiki sometimes changes too much, too fast for my liking, but then again, I still try and greet it with an open mind. ArbCom over 4 years opens you up to very current community views, and maybe that is where I see it from, but I can't help shake the feeling that these two RfAs should have been closed differently.
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: I dug through talkpages for 2 years, and arb cases for a few years, and realized that I may have been more stubborn or final that I thought I had been. I don't think that's harmful, especially as an Arb, if you keep changing around the way your deciding, people are going to lose faith in your decision making abilities. I think ArbCom definitely made me think more before I talked, so that's why the number is so limited.
That said I have agreeing to the reversal of a bad block, a strength of argument vote change, and a discussed agreeable compromise.
Additional question from WBG
10. Can a bureaucrat execute an emergency-desysop; without any intimation from ArbCom? Why or why not? If yes, in what situations?
A: Can they use the tools to do so? Yes. Should they, no. If things are really going south, the Stewards role has been better defined by the global community to deal with issues if ArbCom isn't around. Please see my vote on this ArbCase for further.
10 (a). To what extent do you feel
this policy
(related to the 5th pillar) is applicable to bureaucrats?
A: Exactly as it is defined here. Moreso, crats should avoid the use of IAR on crat actions. There is a high level of community trust put into 'Crats to make reasonable decisions within policy, not ignore the rules and invoke their own choice. I'm not saying never, but very rarely.
11. Will you perform account-renames?
A: That is the job of global renamers, and I am not applying for that role at that time. 'Crats used to be able to do renames, but since that was implemented, 'Crats can no longer do so.
Additional question from Leaky
12. When I see your bright signature "Amanda" and use the standard search tool to look you up per "User:Amanda" I find nothing. Assuming I am a newish, unfamiliar user who does not understand multi-part signatures, is that as helpful as it could be, access wise? (yes, I KNOW it is a hyperlink and I would really prefer your calm, neutral response rather than being badgered to hell by serial badgerers)
A: I don't see it as bright, but then again, I deeply use a blue light color filter because of my migraines. Is it as accessible for people for example using screen readers, no, not by any means. As for new users in general, I don't particularly see it as a problem, more an idea looking for a problem. When I first joined, I knew nothing about the username system, and hell userpages meant nothing to me. I even got freaked out by someone posting on my talkpage thinking it was my own private inbox. In seeing that everyone else's signature includes a link, I think they could find their way. At the end of the day, maybe I could usurp AmandaNP (the name I use on IRC) and redirect that, but the work doesn't seem worth the result.
Additional question from Atsme
13. Do you have the time necessary to devote to this position?
A: Right now there are 19 other 'crats to split a not so heavy workload. It's never a race to get to 'crat requests, and I'd argue that even as an admin, as long as your doing something, it's better than nothing. I will definitely try and put in my fair share on anything that comes up.
Additional questions from RhinosF1
14. Your activity seems to sporadic and descreasing according to Xtools. How can you explain this?
A: On my userpage, you will see that I have a health template that is always up. This is because I have a number of medical issues going on and the number of times I've been at the doctors or an ER last year doesn't even fit on two sets of hands. That, and additionally noted further below on that page, I have struggles with my mental health
Social Worker
and I know what I need to be doing now and how to take my own time and personal space.
15. What are your favourite admin areas and why? (Admin areas defined according to this page)
A: I feel your missing areas, so I will add to it. My favorite area is RfC closures, most of the time you should have an admin for the more controversial ones. I like the big long ones and closing them out. It gives people closure on an issue and a way forward to contributing that they may not have had before. Seeing all the difference of opinions and outlines of policies really gives me a perspective on how users operate and a way to keep current with the issues affecting the community. My second area I like is SPI/CheckUser. I love assisting users to find people who are trying to evade the
permission requests
again to help empower the right users to improve the encyclopedia with their new tools. The rest of the areas you have mentioned I have dabbled in, and don't really have a problem being around, though I try to avoid the toxicity that ANI can bring at times.
Additional question from Vanamonde93
16. Thanks for offering to take on additional responsibilities. Do you think that Separation of powers is a concept relevant to Wikipedia maintenance? Specifically, do you think it is a good idea for the same person to serve both as a 'crat and on ARBCOM? Would being given the 'crat bit affect your decision about whether to run for ARBCOM again?
A: I absolutely thank you for adding this question. I forgot to address it in my intro. First, I have stated very publicly on IRC, but for the record, I am not running for the Arbitration Committee again. It's a stressful role that I put my time in with. I more speak of the increasingly disgusting crap that we get on the Arbitration list. I walked away from my computer many times because of the stuff that has to be dealt with on the Committee. Thank god that is the only role on Wikipedia that has to deal with that level of garbage on a regular basis.
That all said, I do believe in the separation of powers strongly. I try and separate my checkuser and admin role as much as possible. People have often complained that I do not block people I give CU results on, and that is because I believe in the separation of the tools to be almost sacred. As a crat, my role as an ArbClerk, as a functionary, or even as a bot operator will rarely, if at all cross over. I will wear a single hat. I can't remember where Deskana states things to this effect, but I have followed in their footsteps on this matter.
Additional question from User:Valereee
17. You recently had some interaction here with an editor, and from where I was standing I could understand why they were exasperating, but they were also doing mostly pretty good work, just not accepting your advice. You removed their autopatrol and reviewer rights, which I thought was the right call, but then you also AfD’d several of their articles; all but one survived AfD and the other closed as merge. Those AfDs felt punitive to me, like you’d gotten irritated at their unwillingness to be advised and decided to punish them for it. Like I said, I understand why you were exasperated, but looking back, would you have managed the situation differently?
A: Not accepting my advice is one way of putting it. Completely dismissing attempts to discuss the issue on their talkpage by blanking sections is the other. I was not pissed off or exasperated at the time of making the AfDs. I made them because at the time, they were substandard articles where there was no ability to communicate with the user to improve them. I had no access to newspapers.com at the time of filling them, so I couldn't tell that they had potential to be good articles. All I could see was someone putting out substandard articles. Maybe that includes a bit of tunnel vision. Now I am aware that I can search the access I now have to newspapers.com to see if articles now meet the criteria before nominating, but I'm sure you can agree that the pre-AfD status of the articles was not appropriate.
Followup: I'm sorry to keep pressing, but what I was hoping to hear was something like, "Yeah, I probably should have just dropped tags on them, kept them on my watch list, given her a warning for refusal to discuss, and moved on." These were very new articles; no one had even tagged for references yet. These were articles created by an editor with over a hundred article creations and only two deleted, that asserted believable notability, it's just that the references weren't sufficient, and an admin AfDs them after receiving what amounts to disrespect on the editor's user talk page. Can you understand why I'm asking the question? valereee (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to argue out a content/user conduct issue here. If you wish, we can take this up on my talkpage. --
Amanda (aka DQ) 17:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Additional question from Dolotta
18. One of the responsibilities of the Bureaucratic Corp is to flip the Bot switch. Could you describe your qualifications in this area?
A: My bot, Approved BRFA, Another approved BRFA, and another.
Additional question from Enos733
19. What role (if any) do you think bureaucrats should play to encourage more editors to apply to or prepare to become an administrator?
A: Honestly, I think it's the role of the community as a whole to encourage RfAs if it wishes. It's the community who votes in them to promote them, so if they wish to see them, they should invite individual editors. I will still continue to do that as a community member, but I don't think 'crats should be playing a specific role to advocate for RfAs especially if they are going to be evaluating the consensus.
Additional question from Davidelit
20. Hi. This is slightly related to the previous question. I have been an editor since 2006, and have over 7,500 edits to my name, but have no interest in going for Admin because of the confrontational and humiliating (and hoop-jumping) application process. I have been in contact with other editors who feel the same. Do you have any thoughts about ways to improve the process so it is still rigorous enough to ensure that only the right people get the job, but that is a bit more friendly to those who stick their heads above the parapet?
A: My answer is essentially the same thing as above. I don't have the solution the whole community has looked for years, and being a crat, I'm not any more of an expert on RfA. The process is rigorous because of the bad apples we've had. Honestly, the de-adminship point needs to be addressed before the adminship standards can be addressed. Without it, people will not trust to add more people to the corps.
Additional question from Kashmiri
21. Hi, I did vote in support already, but wondering whether I should change my opinion given your brushing off of the very valid issue referred to in Q17. So, may I ask you to try to clarify whether you would have handled the described situation differently, or this will be your standard behaviour as a bureaucrat? Please note I am not asking you to discuss another user's conduct but your handling only. Thanks. — kashmīrī TALK 13:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A: I could have done things differently. I didn't agree with valereee's exact proposal, as I don't think just watchlisting/tagging it is acceptable, nor would be leaving a warning to inflame the situation. As far as what I could have done, I could have gotten other content contributors involved instead of going right to AfD, I could have tried even harder to get sources that were behind paywalls, I could have even gone to my library and looked these people up myself or try and pull some academic articles. I can see how it looks vindictive even though that wasn't my intention, and it may feel like a slap in the face for some content editors. For what it's perceived to be, I apologize. I also apologize to the content crowd for not taking those extra steps to begin with. I hope this starts to address some of the concerns that people are having.

Discussion

RfBs for this user:

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

Support
  1. Hell yes SQLQuery me! 01:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  3. Support Per Tony and also SQL --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  5. No concerns, highly qualified/trusted. --Rschen7754 01:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Absolutely clearly qualified for the job. Home Lander (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. yes Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support – highly qualified candidate, and well respected by the community. Bradv🍁 01:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support trusted, competent ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Of course. — 🦊 01:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Honestly kind of overqualified. Mz7 (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support trusted and capable. Jianhui67 T★C 01:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  14. Stephen 01:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  16. Support Absolutely -FASTILY 01:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. To be honest, I didn't read all this stuff before voting, because I didn't think what DQ had to say about her candidacy mattered as much as what we've observed of her work on wikipedia. Now that I've read the Q&As, I am even more supportive of DQ becoming a bureaucrat. Natureium (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Trusted. Good judgment. They don't come better than this. Antandrus (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support why not? Good luck.--Mona.N (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support With pleasure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Sure. J947 (c), at 02:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, absolutely. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Of course, DQ is a well-trusted member of the community. ~
    Comments · Changes 03:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  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)[reply]
  26. Strong Support - With absolutely zero hesitation. Thorough, rational, and not afraid to make difficult calls when necessary.
    ✉ 03:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  27. Support - FitIndia Talk 03:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Wow yes. Yes please. And thank you. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  30. Support Why not? Double sharp (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support I'm on the hype train! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Easy call. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  33. support Meh, lourdes comment actually didn't make any sense, why vandalism only IP should be tolerated?--AldNonUcallin?☎ 04:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support experienced candidate, trusted and qualified --DannyS712 (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Obvious support Trusted user, good track record, level headed, responsible, I could go on. ~Awilley (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support: well qualified and trusted user. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong support - Known her for awhile, and nothing seems to have changed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Obviously. Mkdw talk 05:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  40. Support lots of experience. sensible. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  42. Support. All-round qualified candidate. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  44. Strong Support stwalkerster (talk) 07:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. It's hard to imagine someone more experienced and more trustworthy. – Joe (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support No reason to think they'd misuse the extra tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Can’t see any reason why not. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support, precious. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Experienced editor. Tolly4bolly 09:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Can't think of anyone better. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  51. I might be on a break at the moment, and probably shouldn't !vote a 'crat - but this is worth it. Strong Support WormTT(talk) 10:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support, good candidate. ϢereSpielChequers 10:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - I can think of few Wikipedians more qualified.- MrX 🖋 10:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - Are we supposed to reserve the "I thought she was already" comments for RFA? Cabayi (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Gog the Mild (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    @Fish and karate: - that analogy got a bit away from you there! Nosebagbear (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    Reaffirming support. Normally, a run of AfD nominations that all get closed as "keep" rings alarm bells in my head. However, I looked at the situation and found DeltaQuad to be conciliatory and tactful in their responses, and adequately showed they understood
    WP:BEFORE when challenged. I notice the editor affected, TeriEmbrey is still actively editing and the experience of the AfDs has not dissuaded them from contributing to the project, and the articles were all improved - so ultimately I call that a win for the encyclopedia. In any case, I don't really see how any of this relates to being able to fulfil duties as a 'crat. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    My concern is not that it didn't work out okay in the end; the articles didn't get deleted and instead were improved, and as you say, a pretty useful editor is still editing. My concern is that it felt punitive from where I was standing, and that if it's not something Amanda looks back on and thinks, "Yeah, I could have probably handled that better," then it could happen again and might not turn out as well. I haven't !voted and likely won't, as I don't feel I have enough knowledge of either crat duties or of Amanda's work -- this might have been literally my only interaction with her -- but at the time it concerned me even from an admin; that's why it stuck with me. valereee (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support
    ♀ Per TonyB, BMK, PCoder and others + candidate's strong work ethic and history.  Spintendo  11:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  59. Support per "why not?" ——SerialNumber54129 11:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Sure. feminist (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support because an extra 'crat wouldn't hurt, and she is clearly competent enough. First RfB since 2016 2017! Forgot theseSemiHypercube 12:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support with bells on. I have absolute confidence in DQ. Yunshui 雲水 12:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Sure. Mackensen (talk) 12:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Strong Support I have absolute confidence that DQ will take the responsibility with all due seriousness, and carry out the duties with total competence. Sario528 (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Well qualified, no concerns. Can't see any valid reasons to oppose.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support — MRD2014 Talk 13:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support TheDragonFire (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Working with Delta while on ArbCom, I'm highly confident they will do a great job. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - Eminently well-qualified. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. I'll be honest, I have concerns that with checkuser, oversight, ArbCom clerk, OTRS, and now ombudsman responsibilities, adding another responsibility to the list could end up burning DQ out. But she's managed to juggle a whole bunch of wiki roles before and is still here, so I'll trust that she knows how to multitask. Plus, bureaucrat is not a particularly demanding role, and if she has to pull back to attend to other responsibilities from time to time, it's not the end of the world. 28bytes (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Won't disagree with the concerns that 28bytes raises, but honestly, that's up to DQ to understand and manage. Has the calm voice of reason, strong understanding of policy.
    Ravensfire (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  72. Support as extremely trusted admin, Easiest support for RFB I've ever made!. –Davey2010Talk 15:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support: Proven himself to be trustworthy! - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, she has ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support completely qualified, and hold candidate's judgement as uncommonly trustworthy. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support no concerns at all about her ability to take on this role. ~ GB fan 15:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 15:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - no major concerns here. Good to have a new crat every once in a while. Highly qualified.
    « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  78. Welcome to the team! Aaardvark Floquenbeam 15:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - There's nothing I can add that hasn't already been said. DQ is more than qualified for the role. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. No concerns, well qualified, much needed. Britishfinance (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Thanks for volunteering to take on the extra responsibilities. Abecedare (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Without doubt. The Banner talk 17:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. The blood of the 'crat core needs refreshing, this is an excellent place to start.
    talk) 17:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  84. Strong support, absolutely qualified. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. Most former arbs in my book would not qualify as potential crats, because these two flags require different skills, but in this case I do not see any potential issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support sure. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Amanda is a star and completely suited to this role. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support No problems with her. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 18:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Drmies supports Amanda. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support, one of our very finest. GABgab 18:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support. Amanda has walked the cursus honorum skillfully. Haukur (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Lone oppose not a concern. Miniapolis 19:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support - Seems like an excellent candidate for the role. Guettarda (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Pile on support – DQ is great. Her work is great. She has shown a lot of dedication and perseverance in her time here, and she has a depth of knowledge of policy that can only make her a great asset as a crat. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support Yes, indeed. At this time, the single lone oppose is completely unconvincing and based on a misunderstanding of blocking policy. -- ferret (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support . Previous experience indicates she is qualified in determining community consensus and acting accordingly, even in complicated cases. Also, I'm happy someone finally volunteered for the role again. Regards SoWhy 20:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support - per all the above. -
    wolf 20:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  98. Excellent candidate, and I can't even remember when we had the last RfB. —Kusma (t·c) 20:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Echoing SQL's HELL YES Can't think of someone I'd rather see in the Crat seat. DQ was a great ARB and is a great admin. DQ has the kind of mentality that is needed by a crat and doesn't just jump willy nilly into things. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I can think of somebody, though that's more an "as well as" rather than an "instead of" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Glad I caught this! – Juliancolton | Talk 21:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support - per others. Omni Flames (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support per above --Theredproject (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Hell yeah per others above.-- 5 albert square (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support No concerns. The lone oppose is entirely unconvincing. Nihlus 23:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support - will make a great bureaucrat.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support of course. Amanda is a highly trusted admin and showed great judgement while an Arb. Exactly what we need in a 'crat. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Of course! DeltaQuad is a highly-reliable and, as far as I am aware, friendly editor with plenty of experience. We may not need as many bureaucrats as we used to but I welcome new blood being added to our numbers, with fresh perspectives and new vigor. Easy to support her! Acalamari 00:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support One of our most respected admins. —
    talk, contribs) 01:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  109. Support - sounds competent and a steady pair of hands, despite this recent flurry of not so well-judged
    WP:AFD nominations. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  110. Support - I have positive memories of Amanda's work as an Arb and believe she would be a net positive as a crat. Atsme✍🏻📧 01:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support without hesitation. Airplaneman ✈ 02:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Sure, why not? Kurtis (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support Seems to be an excellent admin, I can't see any reason to oppose them becoming a 'crat. EggRoll97 (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support Duh. the lone oppose is utterly unconvincing.
    talk) 03:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  116. Qualified trustworthy and not as interesting as Beeblebrox. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No serious "oppose" !votes. No points to fault on respect for procedures, despite admirable timely decisiveness. On the block of User:Foxnpichu, he had a history of abuse of sockpuppets, and was applying in WP space, for permission, with his userpage at the time failing to declare the history. DQ's action was justified and easily outweighs the user's time in belatedly explaining himself. Q17 is satisfactorily answered. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support, particularly because of the answers to questions. Leviv ich 04:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Enthusiastic support - Friendly, highly qualified, and while Wikipedia is often seen as highfalutin' srs bsns, none of these level-hops are promotions, they are trust positions and we need to fill these unpaid volunteer positions with trustworthy people like DQ. And can someone please let the landlord know that Levivich's signature above is dangling into my apartment? End of line. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support. DeltaQuad has a long record of exercising good judgement in positions requiring trust. I also appreciate her answer to my question. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support per TonyBallioni. --Az1568 (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support - seems to have been and good admin and being an arb shows they can handle complex desicions and controversial RfAs. Good answers to most questions. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 06:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support ~SS49~ {talk} 08:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support. Absolutely. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 08:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support It's always good to have fresh blood come into the bureaucrat team, and DQ is well qualified. Their answers to the questions above are thoughtful, and give me confidence they'll do well in this role. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support. From what I've seen, they couldn't ask for a better candidate AmioDarone (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Yes, has experience. SilkTork (talk) 11:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support. Candidate is sufficiently qualified and experienced. — Newslinger talk 12:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support - trustworthy admin. PhilKnight (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  129. I hesitate to use qualified at an RfB — experience matters much less to me here than trust and judgment — but by any stretch of the imagination DeltaQuad is beyond qualified. The sheer volume of trusted positions in which Amanda has served makes clear what many of us already know: she's a level-headed, eminently trustworthy editor who can work and communicate well with others and has experience at every facet of policy. DeltaQuad is a joy and would be an excellent addition to the bureaucrat team. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 12:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support, and I also echo SQL and TonyBallioni's sentiments. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 12:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support DQ has the mad skillz. Katietalk 12:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  133. strong support Competent, kind, knowledgeable and experienced. Praxidicae (talk) 14:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Sure, why not?
    💸 14:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  135. Definitely. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support Widely respected (as shown above), eminently qualified. GirthSummit (blether) 15:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support. Has long-term community trust, and I can't think of or yet find any incidents which lead me to doubt that it's well-placed. I'm honestly having trouble following the reasoning of the [at this time] sole oppose. If it's just a matter of some anon vandals maybe not getting notices they should have gotten, I think I would chalk that up to the huge amount of IP mischief WP deals with; we can't expect a 100% perfection rate in dealing with all of it, and I don't see how it relates to the 'crat duties.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support Strong judgement, extensive experience in admin-related areas. The Interior (Talk) 16:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support and get well soon.  samee  converse  17:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support Long history of work consistent with the trust placed in a bureaucrat. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support Don't see any reason not to, best of luck. signed, Rosguill talk 19:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support - Can't see any reason not to. Mjroots (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support Well-qualified. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support While I actually do think Lourdes' oppose has a point (given my own work at AIV and the gnashing of teeth when someone gets blocked four hours after their last warning without having edited since), this isn't enough to make me think the candidate could not be trusted with the crat tools—indeed, any further discussion on that would be beyond the scope of this RfA er, RfB. My goodness, these sure are pretty uncommon. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support Extremely qualified. Parabolist (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support SITH (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support: I echo the sentiments of most here and say that DeltaQuad is absolutely qualified for this role. Commenting on the comments and the one oppose so far: I believe any editor, admin, checkuser, or arb can be found to have a few items in their contribs that some disagree with - and DeltaQuad is no exception. However, she has demonstrated time and time again that she can be trusted with the tools, collaborate effectively, and is most definitely working towards the good of the encyclopedia. Also, in response to a question regarding activity levels, it's worth noting that DQ is also active in areas that aren't visible on the main Wikipedia site (such as working on back-end tools like ACC, UTRS, etc.) - as such, xtools may not be an entirely accurate gauge of her Wikipedia-related overall activity level.
    talk) 00:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  148. Support no concerns. Keep up the good work! Royalbroil 00:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Hell yes - I share the sentiment expressed above. I would have supported sooner, but for some reason never saw this until earlier this afternoon. Wishing you the best Amanda! --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  150. This is one request I am quite happy to support. Best regards.--
    John Cline (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  151. Why not? Zingarese talk · contribs 02:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support Of course...Sro23 (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support – based on review. Kierzek (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support While I'm not too happy about the whole AfD thing, I don't think DQ would abuse the tools and that they'd be a net positive as a crat. Also, wow, if this passes (which it likely will), this will be the first successful RfB since Xaosflux's in 2016!--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 03:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support based largely on previous observations of the editor, plus a review of Q&A here. --joe deckertalk 03:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support I trust her with the tools. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 04:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Yes Dr. K. 04:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support Glad to add enthusiastic support. Very well qualified, good judgment and plenty of varied experience. Great demeanor and interactions. Demonstrated trustworthiness for many years. Donner60 (talk) 04:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support – Experienced and level-headed. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Absolutely YES! — kashmīrī TALK 11:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Cautious support the spate of poorly judged AfDs mentioned in question 17 is not encouraging, but all in all that was months ago and there's no evidence of a recurring pattern of poor judgement. Quite the opposite, in fact. – Teratix ₵ 14:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support No Brainer. Sheldybett (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support: No objections. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support Trusted user. Easy call. No reservations. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC) P.S. And thank you for volunteering. It's been (checking) 2 1/2 years since we got a new bureaucrat. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support. Can't think of a better cratidate! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  17:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support enthusiastically. My interactions with this editor have always been very positive and left me impressed with their dedication to the project. Extremely well qualified. I find the sole oppose to be unpersuasive. We need to remember that we are filling often demanding volunteer positions with real people. Infallibility is not a reasonable criteria to be looking for in candidates. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support. Happy Women's Day!. My very best wishes (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support. Huldra (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support, "Miaow, miaow, miaooooww" "no mitskie, this editor is applying for a bureaucrat not a bureaucat", sorry about that everyone, anyway, a well respected experienced editor with no outrageous offences, and a willingness to serve the community, gets my support. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support, of course —DoRD (talk)​ 00:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support per nominator ;) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support Don't think I've ever seen an RfB in my time at Wikipedia. Whatever they do, we probably need more of them. CoolSkittle (talk) 06:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support - What a pleasant surprise, Amanda :) Seeing this even makes me wish I could come back to regular editing. A shame this rare RfB is sullied by a couple of votes in the basement, but what would any RfA/RfB be without at least some misplaced negativity? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Strong support. Very much qualified for the role Nightfury 09:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support: Pleased to see this one come up. Having been given the admin tools for nearly 8 years she's never put a big enough foot wrong to have them taken away during this timeframe. Minima© (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support - clearly experienced and trusted. EclipseDude (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support Denisarona (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Support Jclemens (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support Kaldari (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Support I have no qualms handing out a couple more check boxes to Delta. -- Dolotta (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Support Don't see why not.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Support Absolutely. I've worked with DeltaQuad for a while on the ArbCom, and I trust her judgment. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Support Make it so DlohCierekim 23:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support JarrahTree 00:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  187. suppppportI do not see any concern to be a crat Hhkohh (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support - About time we get a new 'crat, and DeltaQuad is trustworthy. Altamel (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Support I too, am unsure what crats do. But I'm sure DQ will do a fine job at it. Legoktm (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Support per the above. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Support comes across as the right kind of person to do the job. Davidelit (Talk) 14:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Support without equivocation --rogerd (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Support - a solid admin will make a solid 'crat. bd2412 T 15:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Support - this user clearly knows what they're doing. Kirbanzo(userpage - talk - contribs) 18:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Support - Delta has been an admin for some time and clearly knows what she is doing. I'm impressed with the time and effort she has put in and am sure she will make a good bureaucrat. NoahTalk 19:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Support - no concerns. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Support I also have no concerns.
    Lepricavark (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  198. Support Been a long time since we had a new bureaucrat. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Support Has enough experience. jni(talk)(delete) 05:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Support Fully experienced ,knowledge and trustworthy.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Support mainly because I can't see why not. He's obviously worked hard to achieve this. Deb (talk) 08:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Support why not? --
    talk) 10:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  203. Support of course. I'm struggling to think of anyone I regularly or even not-so-regularly interact with on Wikipedia who is more suited to this role than DeltaQuad. Probably one of the most prolific and dedicated administrative contributors to Wikipedia in its history, if we even had a way to measure such a thing. I've known her for years as a dedicated SPI clerk and checkuser, she was also an arbitrator for years, a member of the audit subcommittee, active at OTRS and UTRS, and also currently a global ombudsperson. As TonyBallioni said many lines up, the roles of the 'crats have diminished over the years, but they still play an important role in the project's functioning, and if anyone doubts DQ's dedication to the project functioning, they are fools. I could not possibly more strongly support this candidacy. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  204. Support. So much yes. We need bureaucrats that are in touch with modern Wikipedia. More importantly, Amanda is active on IRC and email, so she will allow the local 'crats to respond to a greater amount of emergency situations without needing to rely on the stewards. ~ Rob13Talk 15:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  205. Support DQ has been active on IRC and has been responsive to all my questions. I see no obvious issues and think she will make an excellent 'Crat. Kb03 (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  206. Support per pretty much everyone before me. –FlyingAce✈hello 15:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  207. Support. It seems apparent that the candidate can handle bureaucrat duties and that the bureaucrat corps don't mind having an extra pair of hands. Deryck C. 16:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  208. Support - Qualified, deserving and well respected by the community. SouravDas1998t@lk to me? 18:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  209. Support. Amanda has experience and good judgment.
     ■ 18:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  210. Support Definitely a qualified candidate who will use the crat tools well.
    ZettaComposer (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  211. Support I've worked with Amanda/DQ for years now - they're responsible, diligent, exceptionally hard working and have tirelessly served the Wikipedia community for more years that I care to remember. They also 'get' what we're all about, a feel, a touch, which is hard to put into words but which is very much a positive. Nick (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  212. Support No concerns about qualifications and aptitude. Would like to see bureaucrats more involved in trying to determine the degree to which the decreasing number of administrators is a problem and promote any solutions (if desired). --Enos733 (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  213. Support A genuine dedication to the unglamourous yet vital back-end work of the encyclopedia. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 23:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  214. Support A well-qualified candidate. JohnThorne (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  215. Support per everyone above. Highway 89 (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  216. Support per obvious qualifications and dedication to the project. —
    click me!) 02:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  217. Support A well qualified candidate, no doubt that she deserves a promotion.CIeveIand13 (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  218. Support A thoughtful candidate with wide Wikipedia experience, from mop to Arbs and beyond. Bringing all that to the bureaucrats should benefit the project; hats off to her for offering to take it on. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  219. Support as per all the people above, there is not much more I can say that has not already been said.
    buzz 05:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  220. Support Count me in the thronging mass of DQ supporters. We might be a disorderly rabble but we know we have faith in our leader!Advance!Up with the DQ revolution...Crats of the world unite!!.... Lemon martini (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  221. Support She's handled the tools over the years remarkably well. I would not say perfect but none of us are. spryde | talk 11:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  222. Support Trustworthy and reasonable. SpencerT•C 13:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  223. Support She seems to be well qualified and I see no major reason to oppose. Ben Kenobi151 (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  224. Support Clearly up to the task. I believe the candidate has expressed serious dedication to improving Wikipedia, and I believe that the candidate fully deserves the Bureaucrat role. QUICKWITTEDHARE CONVERSE 16:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  225. Support - yep. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  226. Support. I don't have much to add to what has already been said, but I've examined all of the opposes and I remain satisfied that this is an excellent fit of the candidate to the position. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  227. Support. No reason not to promote as far as I can tell. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  228. Support. MrClog (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  229. Support - I've seen DQ's work over the years and I believe she is trusted and well qualified for the bureaucrat role. TheGeneralUser (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
    Discussion continued on the talk page. — xaosflux Talk 15:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - I cannot support you after that nuisance that occurred back in October. Yeah, it was a mistake, but it wasted not only my time, but that of other people's too. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Before everybody starts jumping on this, I would encourage forbearance. I am quite certain this oppose will be given every ounce of weight it deserves when the discussion is closed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Question @Foxnpichu: What nuisance back in October? – Athaenara ✉ 00:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Athaenara: DQ blocked Foxnpichu, who was subsequently unblocked. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I was about to say that. I know about
    WP:AGF, of course, but I don't think revenge is a great reason to oppose an RfB. SemiHypercube 02:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Normally I wouldn't comment down here, but for transparency,
    Amanda (aka DQ) 02:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @
    wolf 02:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @SemiHypercube: - I am not opposing for "revenge". The problem is that if you're gonna be a bureaucrat, you have to take any poorly placed blocks into consideration. Foxnpichu (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    wolf 02:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @
    continue editing, we should also be willing to forgive others' simple mistakes. Bradv🍁 02:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Okay, for starters, mind your own business and stick to what's relevant. I might be acting a bit unfair here, but impulsively blocking somebody, wasting the time of other administrators (albeit unintentionally), not even apologising for any of it and then throwing yourself into a RfB nomination less than six months later? For right now, I'm not convinced. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You're certainly entitled to your opinion. But by your own logic you would still be blocked. Bradv🍁 14:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a difference between 6 months and 32 months. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also a difference between a
    flagrant abuse of one of our core policies and a simple mistake. You're only here because of the forgiving nature of the admin who agreed to unblock you. You are applying a double standard. Bradv🍁 14:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Well it looks like you can't convince me to agree with you, and I can't convince you to agree with me, so I'm likely just not going to post here anymore. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose [1] Crazynas t 05:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    wolf 21:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I do not believe a user who holds the explicit position that a borderline IAR action (even if emergency removals were allowed it was a borderline emergency, dig into the case if you want, but the long and short of it is the arbs themselves were aware that there was a situation and had decided not to implement a level 1) regarding the most sensitive tool in this toolkit does not deserve a reprimand (much less any sort of sanction) has the proper temperament or ability to gauge community consensus to be a bureaucrat. Crazynas t 01:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose I wasn’t planning to !vote here. I didn’t feel I had enough experience with Amanda’s work, and I can see that people who do know her well support her candidacy, and that clearly she’s going to be successful, and I wish her well. All I was looking for when I asked my question was for her to consider whether she’d maybe not handled a situation well. Everyone has bad days and makes bad decisions now and then, even the most well-intentioned of us, and my concern would have been completely alleviated if she’d only been willing to consider whether there was any possibility that she’d mismanaged the situation. But instead she doubled down, not once but twice now. I absolutely hate this, but I don’t feel I have any other responsible choice at this point. valereee (talk) 11:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. I have to agree with Valereee on this. I wasn't going to !vote either, but the snow supports combined with jumping on (example) the few opposes have the effect of giving more weight to my doubts. I have no problems with most of DeltaQuad's work, but I don't think DeltaQuad will be a good bureaucrat. – Athaenara ✉ 13:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion continued on the talk page. —DoRD (talk)​ 01:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose I believe Ombudspersons should not also be active in any of the roles that the complaints might be about that they need to handle. Samsara 22:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you expand on how the crat flag interacts with the ombud role please? SQLQuery me! 22:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I have read on both roles, it doesn't seem like they would conflict with one another. If admins can be Ombudsmen (like the subject of this nomination who is both an administrator and an Ombudsmen at the moment), why can't bureaucrats be Ombudsmen? Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 02:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not say active admins should be Ombudspersons. Of the currently serving three Ombudspersons from enwiki, she is the only one that is an admin. However, consider that there are only 19 crats. If they don't know each other yet, they will by the end of the first crat-chat. There is a huge potential for conflicts of interest (COI) there. And if you were to point out that she's only recently left ArbCom and is now overseeing that, too, you'd also be right that that gives potential for a COI. I'm not even saying that Ombudspersons should never be candidates that have previous experience in other roles, but those roles should not be running concurrently, and I think it would be reasonable to discuss if there should be a waiting period before jumping into a role that oversees a previous one - in the worst case, a complaint from a previous role might still be brought against a person currently serving on that new committee, probably one of the worst possible cases in terms of COI and separation of powers - or perhaps, the complainant might hesitate to report, knowing that the accused is on the committee. Separation of powers rightly is a pillar of communities that run smoothly in the long run, and the Ombudsman commission looks to be roughly moving in the right direction with the current tranche. I think we all have a shared interest not to see that reversed. Samsara 21:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Samsara, I'm really not trying to badger, and I think there is a good argument that can be made for members of the ombudsman commission not using their CheckUser and/or Oversight tools (or resigning them), but on en.wiki the Ombudsman Commission has zero actual authority over either sysops or bureaucrats. Their role is for all intents and purposes restricted to reviewing complaints about abuse of CheckUser and Oversight permissions. ArbCom is our local oversight body for sysops and handles local desysops and cases involving private information, not the ombuds commission.
    On the very rare occasion that an ombuds report called for removal of +sysop (which I think has happened on other wikis years ago but not here) this would be handled by the WMFOffice account as an office action not by a local bureaucrat. This really isn't trying to badger, I'm just not sure what you think the role of the commission is actually compares to what they do. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What a pathetic attempt at FUD, behind a fake veil of good intentions. As per meta:Ombudsman commission: The ombudsman commission investigates complaints about infringements of the Privacy Policy, the Access to nonpublic information policy, the CheckUser policy and the oversight policy on any Wikimedia project (emphasis mine). Samsara 23:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that anyone is arguing that the ombuds don't have jurisdiction on any wikimedia project (emphasis mine), but that the crat flag has absolutely nothing to do with "the Privacy Policy, the Access to nonpublic information policy, the CheckUser policy and the oversight policy" unless I'm missing something about the crat flag. SQLQuery me! 23:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read the relevant documentation before commenting further. Samsara 23:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean to be rude - but do you understand the function of bureaucrats on the english wikipedia? Can you explain how you believe those roles to intersect the Privacy Policy, The ANIP, the CU policy, or the OS Policy? It appears that the only mention of crats on that meta page dates back to it's origination in 2006. I'm not sure it's relevant these days. SQLQuery me! 23:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Yes, but that never happens on large wikis like en.wiki where there is a functioning Arbitration Committee. The role of the ombudsman commission on en.wiki is solely oversight of the privacy policy: namely CheckUsers, Oversighters, and the Arbitration Committee. To my knowledge, there has never been a case on en.wiki where the ombudsman commission has desysoped, and the last time I think there has been an office action removing +sysop on any Wikimedia project for privacy reasons was nl.wiki in 2014 (I think this was the year, Rschen7754 can correct me.)
    Today, when office actions occur, even stewards wouldn't be the ones removing, but the office would do it through the staff role account like happened to Ciphers when he was caught socking as an ar.wiki CU. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What you are writing is clearly absolutely wrong, and I don't know why you can't take the advice I gave to SQL about reading documentation. As the procedure stands, a complainant is clearly within their rights to pick the Ombudsman Commission as a venue if they so choose, regarding complaints about usually a CheckUser, oversighter, bureaucrat, administrator, or arbitration committee member. And there should simply not be someone with a COI sitting on the other end of that process. There are no two ways about this. Putting people in positions where they might be reasonably accused of having acted under COI is a really bad idea. DeltaQuad already has a potential COI issue with their very recent ArbCom membership, let's not pile cratship on top of that. The principle here is that if two roles you're thinking of applying for have a possible COI between them, you should apply for one and desist from the other. Samsara 23:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The only things the OC are tasked with are WMF Board approved and are listed at m:Ombudsman commission#Other documents. OC is not a global arbcom and cannot desysop or decrat on any wiki. I suppose if a violation of privacy was severe enough WMF could just decide that they wouldn't trust someone with admin rights at all (as they did in 2014 in that case mentioned above), but I'm not even sure if OC was involved in that case. But if we followed the logical conclusions of what you are implying, OC members should resign as admins and really shouldn't even edit anything at all, since violations of privacy could result in m:Global bans too. To add: bureaucrats do not handle private data. --Rschen7754 00:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral I failed to notice where the candidate explains how he/she envisions their contribution as a bureaucrat as opposed to what they do now. Debresser (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Debresser: I'm confused. Do you mean DQ did not explain this, and you want her to? Or do you mean DQ did explain this, and you didn't see it at first, but now that you do see it you disapprove? I'm not hectoring, I genuinely don't understand... --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The first. Debresser (talk) 08:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion continued on the talk page. --Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral Based on the edit history provided, I think that the candidate spends too much time working on archiving investigations and talking with users and not enough time editing articles directly. While qualified in this regard, I believe that the lack of direct article editing is a bit of a concern in my opinion. I believe that an increase of article editing needs to be made, so I am going to stand with Neutral because of this. QUICKWITTEDHARE CONVERSE 20:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (note to general public) Please stop taking archiving investigations as a sort of straw to say someone is lacking something. Sure, it might be pressing a button, but you still have to go through everything, check if accounts are tagged, block, as said, all of that. Only after all of that, do you press that button - and if there's mistakes, the onus is on you. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 14:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    +1. Archiving is not "the easy button-pushing job after all the hard work is done" or however it's perceived. It's a vital part of the investigation process. There's a reason so many cases sit closed in the list waiting for someone to archive; if it was a simple task we'd get a bot to do it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote Changed to Support, I did not realize that archiving was not as simple as pressing a button and nor was sockpuppet investigations. QUICKWITTEDHARE CONVERSE 16:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Obviously going to pass; i cannot support, however, having seen the ridiculous badgering that one user has been performing, and noting that the candidate has not (as far as i have seen) made an effort to stop this over-the-top supporter. I would have expected any candidate so "blessed" to make haste to tell their fan to shut up. I trust that once the Bureaucratisation is successfully performed, she will be more active in clerking other RfXs and such discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ LindsayH (talk • contribs) 10:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @LindsayH: If you're referring to who I think you are, it's not DeltaQuad's fault; the editor in question is currently at ANI, and DQ (I imagine) probably didn't want to come off as too blunt while in RfB. I can't be sure though. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, A lad insane; i'm sure we are on the same page. I agree it's not the candidate's fault, and i apologise if i gave the impression i believe that; my point was, rather, that i would have expected any candidate of her experience and gravitas to have said something, here or on the talk page or on the other user's talk page, and it is that hanging back i disagree with. A word in his ear need not have been blunt, and might well have carried more weight. Anyway, thanks for your response. Happy days, LindsayHello 20:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
General comments


The above bureaucratship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/DeltaQuad&oldid=1145656029"