Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/DeltaQuad

Additional Discussion of Lourdes' 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)
 * I, for one, completely support this philosophy. Once a user has made it clear they are not here to build an encyclopedia, the door they shall be shown. Sometimes that only takes one edit. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:13, 12 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 or ). 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." I'd furthermore like to point out that one of the diffs linked by Lourdes says, verbatim, "Hello all. Just like to say: Moo. Moo. Moo. Like a boss. Pumped for Battlefield V. Moo." on Government of Puerto Rico. I fully support DeltaQuad's block there, and would have done exactly the same myself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I'm trigger happy, and I like to give the full four warnings before blocking, and sometimes I've probably annoyed an AIV reporter because they haven't received the four warnings, but I've certainly been guilty of blocking before all four levels have been walked through. Sometimes even for rather innocuous vandalism, if it is happening faster than I could leave the warnings, in which case I issue a short block to stop the disruption and then leave a warning.  Sometimes you just have to use your best judgement regarding what is best for the 'pedia, with the risk that you might be wrong.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 15:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If the IP looks like a Vote (X) for Change sock, don't leave any warnings whatsoever, just revert, block, ignore. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely ;)   ——  SerialNumber  54129  14:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Really, ? Do you really believe that, based on this nitpickery, that DQ can't be trusted as, and/or would be incompetent as a Bureaucrat? You couldn't just point out these minor issues in the "neutral" or "comment" sections for her to take on board, but instead needed to actively 'oppose' this candidate? If we were to find equally "questionable" admin actions in your history, would you resign as a sysop? - wolf  20:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Guys, I get that this isn't an oppose most of us find particularly strong, but let's stop arguing. I don't think it's particularly fair to either Amanda or to Lourdes to spend the next 6 days arguing over philosophies about IP blocking. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , Fine, fine. Can we argue about the philosophies of bacon and fruit instead? — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 13:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * True dat. No need for anyone to go barmy. ——  SerialNumber  54129  16:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Debresser's neutral vote discussion (partial)

 * 1) 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)
 * 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)
 * The first. Debresser (talk) 08:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you mind not referring to someone like that when their user page clearly states that they are female? Thanks. —  Scott  •  talk  12:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mind. I am under no obligation to go to their userpage to check their gender. Now that it has brought to my attention, I have no problem with using the female article, but your highhanded tone, as though I should have done that before, was out of line. Debresser (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I misread your intention in writing as a result of earlier other people elsewhere (best not to ask) and I apologize. Please feel free to remove this exchange once you've read this. —  Scott  •  talk  15:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Or leave it, please. There's been way too much "identity police" activity on WP of late, and it's nice to have an example sore-thumbing itself on a page this prominent.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Off-topic and inappropriate. Hopefully someone will come by and do some clerking. 28bytes (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes please. Striking my comment as well. —  Scott  •  talk  16:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. Debresser (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * This discussion got out of hand after Floq's question and Debresser's response. I don't agree with other user's comments, but I think they were at least well-intentioned except 's, which was pointy and uncalled for.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Pointy, sure. Uncalled for? If that is what he feels, then there probably is some truth to it. Debresser (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's, but not WP:POINTy. It didn't disrupt anything at all. The gist of it is that we don't need people "patrolling" RfA for things to get socio-politically offended about.  In this venue, it's yet another form of badgering (almost always directed against neutral and oppose respondents).  Site-wide, it's part of a "be intolerant in the name of tolerance" wave that badly needs to recede.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Paradox of tolerance. ansh 666 19:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 'Zac'ly. As Popper put it: "I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise."  It creates,, what it's trying to prevent. Much more so when it's not even about actual philosophies but just the trivia of incidental wording choices (which may have been intentionally selected for reasons the self-appointed police/parent has not imagined much less considered).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * On the broader matter (i.e., outside the RfA/RfB context) I see nuisance nagging like this on a nearly daily basis. If someone is going to get pissy that they were generically referred to as "they" instead of "she" (or whatever), let that person be the one to express their demands; it's not anyone's job to do it for them, and trying to do so may actually misrepresent the other person's views anyway. (E.g, I absolutely do not need or want anyone going around "correcting" people who refer to me as they/them that it should be he/him. I object to it. I would rather be given the generic term than someone be nagged at, since it makes  look like the asshole, like I'm activistic about it and trying to get other people to act on my behalf to stamp out singular they, when I'm in fact entirely supportive of it.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As much as I agree (or not) with SMC's viewpoint, even being pointed does not help further that as a justifiable reasoning to say that. -- QEDK ( 後  ☕  桜 ) 19:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I decline to be drawn further into an argument about whether something reasoned that I have said should not have been said after it's already been said. We're all entitled to our views, and that is sufficient. If anyone wants to try repetitively browbeating me to think as they think, they should consider that not only is it not going to change my mind about what makes RfA/RfB increasingly toxic, it's apt to solidify my impression as quite correct, since it's about ideological browbeating in the first place.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Truly, wisdom. Parabolist (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been doing that to you for years, and it has had no visible effect on you, no none at all!>)  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there  17:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's because you can't see my tears through teh Interwebs, waaaaa.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hmm "identity police", "socio-politically offended"...someone please help me find the LOL emoji lest people think I'm actually claiming to be oppressed. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Additional discussion of Athaenara's oppose

 * 1) 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)
 * Just to be clear, how does a massive list of "support" for DQ, along with any responses to the handful of questionable 'opposes' here, which were not posted by DQ, in any way "create doubt" or show that "DQ will not be a good Bureaucrat"...? Can you clarify that? And can you cite any action(s) by DQ as support? Thanks - wolf  21:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Athaenara, in my opinion, there's no need to waste time responding to pointless trolling (struck post 's suggestion;  Lourdes  ) . You may of course choose to respond to any query by other editors. Thanks,  Lourdes   00:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a legitimate question being asked here: what on earth does the behaviour of other editors have to do with DQ's suitability to be a crat? Triptothecottage (talk) 08:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @Lourdes ...Again? Why don't you take this ridiculous derail (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) to the talk page, where your 15 minutes has already been moved to, drop the stick and start behaving to the standard the community expected of you when you asked to be an admin, because this falls short. - wolf  09:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The "jumping on" issue that Athaenara refers to can be summarized by referring to the Sacred cow. TWC in particular has jumped on almost all opposes, and they've even badgered people for asking questions: e.g. User talk:Hhkohh. This behaviour, although neither initiated nor encouraged by the candidate, negatively reflects onto them as a consequence: "What is so special about this person that they may not be criticised?" I'm happy to see that both a bureaucrat and an admin have made attempts at addressing this behaviour – although calling it "trolling" isn't an effective way to handle it – as it is among the already enough problems with the process. Ftr, I don't blame DQ for this, but it needs to be considered that how supporters behave has an impact on how the candidate is perceived. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @Mr rnddude; So perception is everything and facts are irrelevant, as you've clearly demonstrated with basically your entire post. Funny, but I always thought that candidates should pass or fail based on their actions, not the unrelated actions of others, including those seeking clarification of !votes that range from ambiguous to questionable to absurd. Anyway, please accept my apology for badgering you. - wolf  10:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Presumably I'm meant to address this, but it doesn't relate to the comments I've made. I suppose I can say this, [s]o perception is everything and facts are irrelevant is not remotely what I said. [I]ncluding those seeking clarification of !votes that range from ambiguous to questionable to absurd. You consider these passive-aggressive comments "seeking clarification" ? Mr rnddude (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I also noticed TWC's behaviour and in my view it amounts to WP:BULLYING, of WP:POV railroad flavour, pure and simple – its obvious intention is to silence whoever dares to differ about the candidate. There is a template for this: and I am very close to slapping it on TWC usertalk. —  kashmīrī  TALK  17:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you mean Uw-harass4im. – Athaenara ✉  19:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, precisely, my memory failing. Thanks :) —  kashmīrī  TALK  20:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but what do Lourdes' insults, Mr_rnddude's musings or Kashmiri's abusive threats have to do with this 'oppose' again? I'll look for any replies on the talk page, where they belong. Getting back on topic, I am wondering if is going to reply to 's question? Or are they also considered a trolling bully to be ignored? -  wolf  00:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 31 March 2019
Please change  to   to sort the page - all the other RfBs in Category:Successful requests for bureaucratship are sorted by user name. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 07:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Unprotected. –xenotalk 08:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That works too, thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)