Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Worm That Turned 2: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Support: Reply
m →Support: Fix
Line 329: Line 329:
#'''Support'''. Nothing more to add. [[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 08:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Nothing more to add. [[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 08:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
# [[User:Maliner|Maliner]] ([[User talk:Maliner|talk]]) 09:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
# [[User:Maliner|Maliner]] ([[User talk:Maliner|talk]]) 09:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support'''&mdash;I don't think this reconfirmation RfA is necessary, as to the best of my knowledge, there has never been any indication that Worm That Turned lost the confidence of the community. Nevertheless&mdash;and I'm speaking as someone who has been a registered member of this community for over sixteen years, and have seen countless editors come and go throughout that time&mdash;Worm That Turned is one of the most competent, even-handed, and judicious volunteers we have ever had on Wikipedia. If he feels that this RfA is prudent, so be it. He continues to have my unequivocal support. [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 09:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
#'''Support'''&mdash;I don't think this reconfirmation RfA is strictly necessary. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been any indication that Worm That Turned has lost the confidence of the community. Nevertheless&mdash;and I'm speaking as someone who has been a registered editor for over sixteen years, and have seen countless editors come and go throughout that time&mdash;Worm That Turned is one of the most competent, even-handed, and judicious volunteers we have ever had on Wikipedia. If he feels that this RfA is prudent, so be it. He continues to have my unequivocal support. [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 09:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)


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

Revision as of 09:43, 14 November 2024

Worm That Turned

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (233/3/4); Scheduled to end 09:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Monitors:

Nomination

Worm That Turned (talk · contribs) – A little over 13 years ago, three years after I began editing, I nominated myself for adminship, and was successful. Since that time, I have filled a number of roles on the encyclopaedia, largely behind the scenes, most prominently as a member of the Arbitration Committee for 8 of those 13 years, but also oversight, checkuser & bureaucrat. I strongly believe that the administrator toolbox should not be a lifetime appointment, and had always intended to reconfirm at some point, and circumstances have come together to make that possible here.

Wikipedia is a volunteer role, and real life should always come first. So, regarding my current circumstances - I recognised that my time for Wikipedia was significantly limited by my work. My role has unexpectedly changed this year, and I now have time again. As such, I have decided to stand for re-election to the Arbitration Committee, and fulfil my commitment that I would reconfirm my adminship if I wanted the tools back, despite being within WP:RESYSOP limits. However you choose to !vote on this reconfirmation RfA, I would appreciate any comments you would like to make, which I will take on board and refer back to in the future.

Now that that's covered, I'd like to talk about some of my highlights on Wikipedia. From a content perspective, I have written 2 Featured and 30 Good articles, slightly over half were about women in history, a group of people who are underrepresented on Wikipedia. From a community perspective, I spent years running the historic adopt a user program, personally adopting 35 users. From a meta perspective, I have strong opinions on adminship and have spent years helping reform the process of becoming and leaving being an administrator. On the Arbitration Committee, I've made tough decisions, drafted cases, managed community crises and pushed for major, essential reform. Throughout, I've tried to keep Wikipedians at the heart of everything I do.

I'm not, by any means, perfect. I'd love to hear your questions, here, on my talk page or by email if you'd like a protracted conversation. I have never edited for pay, though I have received swag as part of my volunteering over the past 15 years. I have a few alternate accounts, all currently dormant, all easy to identify as me and all declared on my user page. WormTT(talk) 08:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I do accept. WormTT(talk) 09:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: As much as I believe that non-administrators should be able to join the Arbitration Committee, I am also pragmatically aware how useful the administrator toolset is when sitting on the committee, not least by being able to see deleted edits in particular. WormTT(talk) 09:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I've covered some of my highlights above, and I talk about what I'm proud of on my user page, but for this question, I'd like to dive into my two featured articles. Doom Bar, a topic which I was inspired to write about based on a beer mat (I was drinking Doom Bar before it was a national beer!) - I really learned about research and investigation in creating the article. Sabrina Sidney on the other hand, was a topic that simply didn't seem real, and was fascinating to read about. I encourage everyone to read the article. I am not a talented writer, my background is mathematics, so I have found the featured article process very stressful - but worth it.
The edit I am most proud of, however, is this one. It was a time that our WMF relationship was significantly different, budgets were king and pressure needed to be applied. Although most of the work was done behind the scenes, and I was only a part of it - I believe that edit was important in moving WP:Child Protection from community to WMF responsibility. WormTT(talk) 09:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have. I've had to make tough decision on the committee, been the face of those tough decision. I've taken issue with the behaviour of administrators on and off the committee and dealt with it directly. I've managed the stress by taking regular breaks, identifying my personal signs of burn out and stepping back before then, and encouraging feedback from other community members to see if I'm acting out of line. WormTT(talk) 09:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions are disallowed, but you are allowed to ask follow-up questions related to previous questions.

Optional question from an IP user

4. Some administrators believe that it is a good practice to "procedurally" decline "stale" unblock requests based solely on the fact that no admin cared to attend to them for an extended period of time. What are your thoughts on that subject? Do you recall ever procedurally declining a stale unblock request?
A: I have not, and would not procedurally declined a stale unblock request simply based time, unless other factors were involved. Personally, I do not believe unblock requests should be procedurally declined unless the request no longer has relevance, e.g. the block is no longer in force, or a subsequent community discussion has required the block to stay in place.
On the flip side, however, if an unblock request has been hanging around a while and has not persuaded any administrator to unblock - it is likely that the request does not meet the requirements for unblocking. I can therefore understand the logic of administrators who do follow the "procedural" or "light touch" closure of these requests. The problem is that without giving feedback to the request, the blocked individual has less chance to be properly unblocked and therefore re-integrate with the community. Those few helpful words in declining an unblock request could make a big difference long term. WormTT(talk) 14:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from GTrang

5. Why are you doing a full reconfirmation RfA instead of making a resysop request at WP:BN?
A: Thank you for asking this GTrang, as I do appreciate I'm taking the community's time up with this request. I've been around on Wikipedia for a long time, and spent a lot of time working around WP:RfA. Many years ago, two administrators decided to run through a reconfirmation RfA, HJ Mitchell and SarekOfVulcan. To this day, I wish more administrators did that, and always intended to do so around my 10 year adminship anniversary - however I found myself "busy" with duties that I didn't want to risk.
In January, when I stood down as an admin, I committed to a reconfirmation. I genuinely expected to be unavailable for 2-5 years at the time so I would either come back sooner and run a reconfirmation RfA, or later and need to run an RfA anyway. I'm not one to back down on a commitment, so here I am.
My strongest hope for this RfA is to be given feedback, be it areas I can improve or things I'm doing well. Unfortunately, the anonymous voting at SecurePoll during an election doesn't offer that. WormTT(talk) 15:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from GreenMeansGo

6. Mayo or Miracle Whip? This will decide my !vote.
A: To the best of my knowledge, I have never tasted Miracle Whip. I did not know of Miracle Whip until this question. Mayonnaise has its place, especially in some sandwiches - it pairs very well with Bacon in a BLT (one of my most controversial Good Articles), and is essential in egg mayonnaise, but I'm not an autocondimentor, and it's rare that mayonnaise would be my condiment of choice. Therefore, I believe my answer is "neither". WormTT(talk) 16:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Martinp

7. Welcome back. While technically you resigned as admin 10 months ago, you've been generally less active (as admin and editor) for 1-2 years. Nothing at all wrong with that, but as you become more active again, what are some of the biggest changes you see in norms, processes, or culture at EN:WP that have occurred during your "break"? These may be changes you will adapt to, or ones you will strive to change, that's up to you.
A: This question, and Dianaa's below, are excellent and exactly what we should be asking in this sort of scenario. The biggest changes I've seen is around Admin Elections and Recall - less about what they mean for the community, as we've had ideas like them mooted for years, but more that these long term perennial proposals have actually happened. That shows a marked shift in the community in the past year - is it numbers of people watching, apathy or willingness to try something new? I'm trying work that out myself at the moment.
I've seen that conflict that has been apparent in the wider world has reflected itself on Wikipedia - there's no surprise there, but it's happening, and does need to be watched - interestingly it does mean that previous battlegrounds are being re-visited. I see that there's technical changes that I'm happy about, things like a simple new Speedy category for C4, or the Global vanish button, something that is very important to me because vanishing was the reason I became a 'crat.
There are outside factors that are worrying, such as the Asian News International fiasco. Indeed, the encyclopedia is always changing - and I will endeavour to change with it. WormTT(talk) 19:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Diannaa

8. I see you haven't edited much in the last couple years. Could you please describe what efforts you have made to make sure your knowledge of admin work is up to date? Thanks.
A: Up until September 2023, I was about as active as I ever was, maybe not making edits, but I was responding to emails and reading my watchlist on a day to day basis. I stepped down from Arbcom because I couldn't keep up at that pace. It's difficult to evidence that, of course. I quickly realised that without the information coming to me, I needed to go looking for it, and that's where I didn't have time - leading to me stepping down from all administrative roles.
To get back to the swing of things, I've been reading. A lot. The Administrators Newsletter is my go-to starting point, but also the Signpost, noticeboard archives. I've discussed "what I've missed" with a few colleagues, finding out key points. Some I knew about beforehand, some I didn't. Some I could have predicted, some not. No matter what, I've been reading - bringing myself up to speed on topics is something I got pretty good at on Arbcom over the years. WormTT(talk) 19:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Andrew D.

9. The article Even a worm will turn gives some history of the phrase, which goes back to Shakespeare and beyond. Please explain or elaborate on your reasons for choosing it as your account name. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A:Back before the turn of the millenium, I took Latin at school - our teacher was, shall we say, of a different era. He delighted in using phrases such as "My dog is a wonderful beast" and "Right you little worms!", which my fellow students and I found very amusing. When it came to me choosing my first free email address, not wanting digits at the end, I chose "worm that turned", a moniker I've kept to this day. In the years since, I've found the references to The Worm That Turned (never watched Two Ronnies in my childhood - and it certainly feels wrong in today's society) and Shakespeare (Henry VI wasn't among my repertoire) as well as others. WormTT(talk) 10:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Hawkeye7

10. Do you intend to seek reconfirmation as a bureaucrat?
A: I do not. I am not certain whether I will pick up the 'crat hat again, as I do understand that many in the community feel the need for separation of powers and there are scenerios where I must choose between the roles. Equally, the amount of work I've done at RfA meant that I do feel drawn to the role, and happy to help out there, attending crat chats and technical measures as and when. In truth, I was far more active as a crat (relative to the amount of crat work) than I ever was as an administrator. Were I to decide to pick the 'crat hat back up though, I would not like to spend more of the community's good will on another one of these reconfirmations this decade. WormTT(talk) 10:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Fathoms Below

11. We have lost five bureaucrats this year, including yourself and your RfB nominee SilkTork. Although we have not had a 'crat chat for over a year, and are experimenting with the new Administrator Elections procedure that does not require 'crat chats, we still had a close call at my RfA early in the year. Have you considered involving yourself in the vetting of potential candidates for RfB? Why or why not?
A: As you mention, I've nominated for 'crat in the past, and I would do so again - if anyone is interested and wants to discuss, do contact me. Unfortuantely, the 'crat role has rather become defunct on Wikipedia, flicking a switch for adminship or bot (yes, I'm trivialising it, there's a lot of weighing of consensus too, but the userright is limited), yet has one of the highest bars to access. That makes candidates few and far between. WormTT(talk) 10:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
12. Do you intend to involve yourself in some form of content creation (article creation, DYK, GA, FAC) if you pass RfA? Or would it detract from your limited time that can be spent on Wikipedia?
A: I do hope to do a little content creation on the side. I'm unlikely to go through FAC, simply because I feel like a fraud there as I don't believe my contributions are up to that standard, however article creation / expansion and maybe even GA is not beyond the realms of possibility, during my free time. I've spotted a few interesting topics over the past year that I do want to expand.

Optional question from McYeee

13. Would you be willing to change your signature from WormTT(talk) to WormTT(talk) so that it renders legibly in dark mode without changing how it looks in light mode?
A: I used to have a border around my username for contrast, but dropped it due to the length of my signature. I've added a blurred background for dark mode, which may help. I would have gone straight for your suggestion @McYeee but for the discussion I spotted below. Happy to discuss my signature further on my userpage, I'm definitely happy with technical changes to it, but would prefer to keep the length to a minimum WormTT(talk) 10:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from BarntToust

14. Usually Admins I've seen around involve themselves in keeping watch over at least one contentious topic, whether it be Politics of the United States, or Israeli–Palestinian conflict or Grand Theft Auto, or whatever else. Do you plan to focus your prospective Sysop powers onto the subject of any of these, or any other contentious topic?
A:

Very, very, very optional question from Tryptofish

15. Please confirm that you are not now, nor ever have been, inside of RFK Jr's brain.
A:

Discussion

RfAs for this user:

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

Numerated (#) "votes" in the "Support", "Oppose", and "Neutral" sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account. All other comments are welcome in the "general comments" section.

Support
  1. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Obvs. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yep. Benison (talk) 10:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Chetsford (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. no-brainer. Nobody (talk) 10:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - I am familiar with this editor and great work both as an editor and an admin.. - tucoxn\talk 10:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support No concerns Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The opposition is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. If you don't like the process, ignore it. If you have reasons why WTT should not be an admin, say those. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I don't think that Vermes is obsolete. Polygnotus (talk) 10:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - absolute no brainer. GiantSnowman 10:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Toadspike [Talk] 10:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Ratekreel (talk) 10:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Sam Sailor 10:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, per nom. - Ampil (Ταικ • Cοnτribυτιοns) 10:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Leijurv (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support – 5225C (talk • contributions) 10:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Obviously. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  20. This is a pretty easy one :) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. The candidate has my trust. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Coeusin (talk) 11:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just add, this was no waste of time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support checking recent admin actions, they all appear to be warranted. Though I would put a question mark over the upload of File:Camel Estuary 1825 and 2010.png which had to have its size reduced. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that feedback @Graeme Bartlett. It was actually worse than that - I had originally uploaded to commons, and moved it to WP after the violation there was pointed out. I will certainly endeavour to be more vigilant of the same in future - especially as I used to teach it to others!! WormTT(talk) 11:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Easy. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 11:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, no brainer. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  28. To ArbCom you go, good luck. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support WTT is, without exaggeration, the single biggest reason I am still around on any of the Wikimedia spaces. I have thought about the WP:ADOPTion pages he created often, both as a 'gold standard' of "This is what we should aim for" as well as looking up info for my own benefit. He's consistently been the voice of reason, and sometimes the sole voice of reason. I'm glad to see The Worm That Returned and hope to see him in Arbcom. Oh and I guess we have WTT to thank for WP:AELECT. Soni (talk) 11:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Daniel (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Happy to have you back! Bobby Cohn (talk) 12:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - another no brainer. 13 new admins this month, wow. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That was the norm once upon a time. From the 2010s onward, standards for candidates became much higher, and those who were willing to go through the rigamarole of RfA numbered far fewer. Kurtis (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, precious. That would be enough, but you also made my #1 edit, in 2015. (The #2 edit followed in 2023, by Maddy from Celeste.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - Donald Albury 12:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strongly charlotte 👸♥📱 12:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  37. i think it's safe to say this is a trustworthy user lol ... sawyer * he/they * talk 12:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support DanCherek (talk) 12:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support: No questions from me. BusterD (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Good to have you back. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Wham2001 (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Should probably have used the BN reappointment process Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedure reappointment process to save some community time here. More efficient. Anyway, welcome back. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting that this RFA was technically optional for WTT as he simply could have asked (and received) the bits back. I suspect if he wants the 'crat bits back he'll just ask. Primefac (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh he was a crat too? I didn't know that. Edited my original comment for clarity. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, misunderstood. Just noting that at resignation he did say he would go this route (though I suspect he thought it would be a couple of years before!). Primefac (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support obviously, but always great to see that extra bit of community accountability rather than a simple reappointment! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  44. —Kusma (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Has not lost community trust since last time. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  46. —Ingenuity (t • c) 13:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. To quote Cullen328, "whenever I have seen your signature, it was preceded by wise words". That's a high compliment, and one I very much agree with. --rchard2scout (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support: Absolute no brainer. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Yeah ~ LindsayHello 13:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. JPG-GR (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. AKAF (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Skynxnex (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Drmies (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Duh. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Calm voice of reason. Binksternet (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Glad to see you're willing to serve again. Wikipedia needs adults to be in the room. Geoff | Who, me? 13:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - Dave is a good spud. Carrite (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Easy support. This is not a necessary RfA, of course, but the question here is "would this editor having the administrative toolkit be a net positive?" and the answer, based on over a decade of evidence of hard work, cluefulness, and decency, is "absolutely." Welcome back. 28bytes (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Armbrust The Homunculus 13:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support, obviously — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 13:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support, absolutely. GoodnightmushTalk 14:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Duh. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support trusted user. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support instant yes. Blythwood (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. No other comments needed, really; I trust the candidate, especially given that he is a longstanding former admin and bureaucrat. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support (ec X2) Really not necessary, but happy to support anyway. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. 〜 Askarion ✉ 14:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  70. supportThanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. No issues. Llwyld (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. Most of my experience seeing WTT around has been in their capacity as an Arb, and in my opinion they did an exemplary job in that role; I'm pleased to see that they're looking to pick up the mop again. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. Not sure why this is here instead of the standard request at BN, but sure. WTT is excellent. Folly Mox (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 14:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Yes, please! HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support --v/r - TP 14:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - Not necessary, no big deal. FOARP (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support for sure. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support - strongest possible based on editing and admin history. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. Consummate professional who I would trust with my life. — GhostRiver 16:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support of course. Wikipedia was the poorer when WTT left and their return can only improve things. Neiltonks (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Can't very well criticize a voluntary reconfirmation RFA, can I? Although this one is pretty much a 100% foregone conclusion, so maybe not quite as ... interesting. Anyway, zero concerns. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  85. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support, especially for the well-written and objectively correct answer to Q6. ;) NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Welcome back. – bradv 16:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Happy he's back. My biggest question mark about Worm is why he made the "binding" statement he did when he turned in the tools - feels in real contrast to his statement at ACE of being a voice of reason. But I do know he's a voice of reason and I do have immense respect for him as an arb, an admin, and a person. We're lucky to have him return to our community and despite that knit I've picked, am very happy to have him back. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe my statement was "binding" on the community, but rather a "commitment" to myself and my beliefs - I believe in reconfirmation, I believe in feedback and I believe in self improvement. WormTT(talk) 16:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In terms of editor time - which I find among our most precious of commodities - this is a very expensive way to get feedback. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to disagree with you there @Barkeep49. I'm not the best use case, as this RfA is showing, however - one of our biggest problems on Wikipedia is editor retention, and that's the reason that the time is such a precious commodity. The most important factor in volunteer retention is motivation. We as a community are not good at encouraging motivation. If administrators felt welcomed to do reconfirmation RfAs, then not only would they get feedback for areas that they may be failing, but also they would get positive feedback on areas that they are not. No one is "required" to participate in this RfA, so I struggle to agree that it is "expensive". WormTT(talk) 19:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ArbCom is the closest anything comes to a requirement and even that still have WP:VOLUNTEER elements. However, of the ways you could get feedback this casts by far the widest net - appear as a watchlist notice and as a central notice. And so you are, by asking for feedback this way, asking for lots of editors to spend time giving you feedback. I love your concept of admins getting feedback and will think about my own method because I agree with you that it would be good to a have a culture that encouraged admins to seek this kind of feedback before we get ot ARBCOM/RECALL territory. But yes this remains a way to ask a lot of editors to spend time - many of whom aren't offering any meaningful feedback other than they're happy to see you (which, as you know, I am) and so I continue to question if this practice became (as you want) normal whether editors spending time here as opposed to other wiki pursuits helps make us the best encyclopedia we can. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 Sdkb talk 18:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Easy confirmation ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support - Happy to see you around again! ~ Matthewrb Let's connect · Here to help 17:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. Yes! TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 17:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. Always viewed WTT as a sensible voice of reason. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Can't think of any rationale befitting the occasion, honestly. Not even for a joke oppose. JavaHurricane 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support - nbd Mujinga (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support ULPS (talk • contribs) 17:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Hi, I don't think we've met. Fathoms Below (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support An admin only keeping the tools if they have the support of the community—this is almost a foreign concept on Wikipedia. I wish more admins had this integrity. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support, I've always had a great respect for WTT, although very little if any interaction between us.-Gadfium (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  101. It's only a waste of time if we all spend our time arguing about how it's a waste of time. -- asilvering (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support Never had a significant problem with WTT, which I cannot say for several others with the Admin bit. If someone is on ArbCom, it seems to me that a) Adminship should be automatically granted or b) All such information should be made public. I for one do not like decisions made with secret evidence. I'm ok with a LITTLE redacted info to protect PII or other sensitive data, but everyone should be able to look at the evidence presented and draw a similar, reasoned conclusion. I'm ok with a or b, but not c) keep things status quo. Buffs (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  104. With deep respect for WTT, and while echoing Barkeep's sentiment that In terms of editor time - which I find among our most precious of commodities - this is a very expensive way to get feedback. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Must support the Wyrm, of course, even though I've always believed in the idea of having at least one non-admin on ArbCom. At least I will be exercising my other RFA hobbyhorse: I love a self-nom! Bishonen | tålk 18:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  106. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support, seems good. mwwv converse∫edits 18:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support – Kudos for the decision to go through RfA rather than a simple WP:RESYSOP. I've always had a lot of respect for Worm, and the decision to request community consensus to regain the mop only heightens that respect. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Fantastic to see you back. If you want feedback, my only suggestion would be that you spend some time in the mainspace and in the trenches as an admin. It's been a while since you did either and things change. Arbs sometimes have to sit in judgement of their fellow editors and admins so it is beneficial for them to understand those people's realities. Also, thanks for reminding me about my reconfirmation, now 13 years ago! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you @HJ Mitchell. You're right, I do need to get back to the front line. I've been quietly getting back into researching and editing since coming back, reminding myself of cite templates and general principles there. I'll be checking out the noticeboards and participating there a bit in the near future too. WormTT(talk) 19:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support. Schazjmd (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Arguments from the neutral or oppose section do not convince me. Obvious support.--A09|(talk) 19:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Thought you were an admon TBH, ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 19:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  113. support. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support. Station1 (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Frostly (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support: The community got it right the first time. Glad you're back. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support Welcome back Worm. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support SportingFlyer T·C 19:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Axios! -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support No apparent issues, welcome back. EPIC (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support What 28bytes said. Perfect4th (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support Nothing I could say that hasn't already been said - per nom. Reconrabbit 20:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support yeah, sure. Not "a waste of time" (no one is obliged to spend time on this RFA); I, for one, appreciate requests for reconfirmation). I know that WTT knows that there's a 99.9% chance of getting reconfirmed, but that's neither here nor there, though perhaps their own fault (for being WTT). ---Sluzzelin talk 20:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  124. The equivalent of Michael Jordan’s return. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Worm is thoughtful, empathetic, and ethical and I am very pleased to see him returning. arcticocean ■ 20:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support nobody is perfect, but WTT comes closer to that than most. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support. Insert joke about I thought he already was one. Yeah, I've seen him around, and he does good work. But seriously, he has always been one of our most clueful administrators, and was one of the most clueful Arbs. I was saddened when he stepped down, and I'm delighted to welcome him back. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Can't say that I know you, but choosing reconfirmation RfA instead of a much simpler route is commendable. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 21:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  129. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support good to have an old-timer back along with so many new faces. Mccapra (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Of course Girth Summit (blether) 22:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support: Knowledgeable, experienced candidate. Thank you for offering to serve.--Diannaa (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support Thank you for offering to re-RFA.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support - welcome back. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 22:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support I nit-picked Worm's signature, but I can't think of an answer to my question that would change my !vote to oppose. McYeee (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support Welcome back Josey Wales Parley 22:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support. I haven't always agreed with the candidate either as an editor (the Beethoven edit is a reminder of an unpleasant reality on Wikipedia) or as an administrator and arb, but overall, one of the good 'uns: thoughtful, and mindful both of the purpose of Wikipedia and of the humans behind the nicks and the IPs. This time I get to support. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you @Yngvadottir. I do not expect everyone to agree with me all the time, but I do hope I'm approachable enough that you, and others, would be willing to talk to me if you disagree. The Beethoven edit was me implementing consensus from an RfC - if I recall correctly, I subsequently implemented a "no infobox" consensus elsewhere around the same sort of time - I may add infoboxen to my articles, but never agreed they should appear on all. Honestly, I don't know why "infobox invisible" didn't become a thing so that it visually didn't change the flow of an article, but could output the microdata needed. But I digress WormTT(talk) 11:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support --Enos733 (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support for culinary reasons. GMGtalk 23:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  142. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 23:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support of course. Thanks for volunteering again. Netherzone (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support of course. Welcome back, my friend. :-) Katietalk 23:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Naturally. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  147. – robertsky (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support. Stedil (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support Pinguinn 🐧 00:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support without reservations. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support resysop. JuniperChill (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support Alexeyevitch(talk) 00:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  153. SilverLocust 💬 01:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support: a lot of respect for going through a reconfirmation RfA. --YodinT 01:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support. Trustworthy track record. Altamel (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support Tazerdadog (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support now that Q8 has been satisfactorily answered. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support unneeded but happy to have you back. Hobit (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support. Best news I've heard all week. bibliomaniac15 03:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support. I do understand the concern raised by the lone "oppose" vote, but I don't particularly see that as a reason to deny the mop to a seasoned editor. BD2412 T 03:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support – Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support of course. I'd forgotten he wasn't. Johnbod (talk) 04:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support – Has done lots of great work as a bureaucrat in the past, and has plentiful experience to be an admin again. Welcome back. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 05:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support And good on you for commiting to the process! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support committed to the process and rules they set out for themselves. Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support I supported the last RfA, and here I am again. I am confident he'll be able to adapt to updated policies and bring his legacy over to a new generation of editors. A♭m (Ring!) (Notes) 06:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support. I do not consider this discussion a waste of time, and am amused that an editor would spend a lot of time writing 13 sentences arguing that it is. Welcome back, WTT. Cullen328 (talk) 07:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support, welcome back. Graham87 (talk) 07:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support great contributor —Surturz (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support and thank you for volunteering. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support. Fully qualified candidate (obviously). Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support — I believe WTT would be a valuable addition to the sysops team and would use the tools responsibly once again. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support of course. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support obviously, despite the advocacy for egg mayonnaise. All I ask is that you sit downwind of me please. Cabayi (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support - Welcome back. Red Phoenix talk 13:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support - easily Eddie891 Talk Work 14:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support. The name is familiar. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Support ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Support Commendable move; no concerns. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Support Great contributor, great admin, and a person of their word. spryde | talk 18:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  184. No problemo. All the best. Volten001 ☎ 18:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Support We've awaited your return. Flibirigit (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support - this is the most "I thought you were already an admin!" RFA ever. Are you just going for some kind of record? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  187. I have no concerns. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support for their skillful understanding of sandwiches and their contributions in said areas. Panini! • 🥪 20:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Support. No doubts at all. We're not here to assess this candidate, he's here to assess the RfA process. Maproom (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Support Yes, please.-- Ponyobons mots 22:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Support — CactusWriter (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Support. Obvious choice and no issues when they had the bit. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Support TheWikiToby (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Support I'm not sure I like the reason a second RfA is being held, but at the same time they are a good editor and were a good admin, so no reason not to give them the bit back. BilledMammal (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Hell, yeah Miniapolis 23:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Support Andre🚐 01:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Happy for the occasion to thank you for all your service to the project. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Support trustworthy pillar of the community. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Support Per all of the above! Johnson524 02:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Mute gesture of approval. DS (talk) 04:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Support. A ways back Worm mentions that our biggest problem on Wikipedia is editor retention. His voice on the subject has been impactful since July 2012 as he helped create WikiProject:Editor Retention and has been supportive of the project ever since. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 05:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Support - Obviously. Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  203. See, I always figured that "even a worm will turn" meant that he was some sort of were-worm. Only under the light of a full moon does he reveal his true annelid nature! But seriously, he's one of the greats, and braver than I to run the gauntlet at RfA even when he didn't have to. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  204. Support ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  205. I'm very happy to Support the admin/editor who nominated me in my own RFA. Plus, you didn't have to have this RFA do-over, I think it's admirable that you chose to do so. Liz Read! Talk! 06:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  206. Support – proven excellent admin with valid reasons for pausing and resuming duties. Certes (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  207. Ed [talk] [OMT] 10:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  208. Support I view self-nominations as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Nick (talk) 10:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  209. Support - demonstrably a good person to have as an admin. LukeSurl t c 10:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  210. Support. Obviously qualified and with a clear need for the tools as evidenced by the applicant's comment below. Also, the more competent administrators, the better. Gatoclass (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  211. Without question and given issues around legacy admins, choosing this step reflects well on Worm. Star Mississippi 14:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  212. Support- Without reservation.   Aloha27  talk  14:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  213. Support a candidate who has created many articles, with none deleted (the one shown is erroneous, couldn't find it in contribs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous1261 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  214. Support per above.Kablammo (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  215. Support a rarity, excellent admin and actual reasonable Arb. The Rambling Man (Been a while, I know......) 16:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  216. Support - we need more admins, although perhaps my pattern of making this blanket statement at RfA will be changed with the advent of WP:ADMINELECT. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 16:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  217. Support - I'm not convinced this was particularly necessary, given that WTT could have (a) just asked to be given the bit back, and (b) would have been given it by default I think if elected as an Arb (is that correct?). But anyway, no need to be POINTy about this: if the question is "should WTT be an admin?" then the answer is certainly "yes", so I'm an easy support. Good luck.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not aware of any "automatic sysop upon being elected arb" rule. Although I'm sure someone will speak up if I'm misrembering. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  218. Support I expect WTT will once again use this toolkit, and do so appropriately. Don't see this RFA as a waste at all, would rather see this route used over a controversial BN request any time. — xaosflux Talk 16:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  219. Support Already thoroughly proven out. And this is a good process. North8000 (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  220. Support Welcome back. Schwede66 18:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  221. Support I trust the user implicitly. --BDD (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  222. support ToadetteEdit (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  223. Support WP:NONEED states: RfAs are intended to establish whether a particular user can be trusted with the tools, not whether they will use them to their maximum potential. [...] If a trustworthy person does not use the tools at all, there is absolutely no harm done. If they use them even once to good effect, then their adminship has served a purpose. As such, I think it's more productive if RFAs were an evaluation the candidate's trustworthiness and level of accountability. As WTT has previously served as an admin and an Arb, and as they resigned for personal reasons rather than under a cloud, I don't see an issue with reconfirming their adminship. Not to mention, we don't exactly have a process for reconfirming adminship other than the same firewalking ceremony that new admins need to go through. If we're to change this, that should be a separate discussion, not unfairly hashed out at WTT. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  224. Support Really just piling on here just for heck of it to be honest. But according to most of these voters and the answers to the question, this editor would be a fine (re)addition to our current admins fanfanboy (blocktalk) 00:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  225. Though I don't know you, but looking at the discussions above, I'm giving this an Obvious support. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 00:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  226. Support without hesitation - I think WTT has been an exemplary admin and arbitrator. I will put on record my usual concern about concentration of power, however, and say that while I will vote for you for ARBCOM regardless, I will be happier if you are not a crat and an arb at the same time. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  227. Support without reservations. Go forth and do good things again. Loopy30 (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  228. Support. It's snowing! But in all seriousness, though, I think this could just be resolved at BN, but it looks like if a reconfirmation RfA is necessary, by all means. Prior experience as an administrator coupled with no glaring problems to me equals automatic support. — 3PPYB6 (T / C / L) — 01:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  229. Support - I am One of Many (talk) 04:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  230. Support This may be the most straightforward RFA I've ever seen. Tamwin (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  231. Support. Nothing more to add. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  232. Maliner (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  233. Support—I don't think this reconfirmation RfA is strictly necessary. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been any indication that Worm That Turned has lost the confidence of the community. Nevertheless—and I'm speaking as someone who has been a registered editor for over sixteen years, and have seen countless editors come and go throughout that time—Worm That Turned is one of the most competent, even-handed, and judicious volunteers we have ever had on Wikipedia. If he feels that this RfA is prudent, so be it. He continues to have my unequivocal support. Kurtis (talk) 09:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Agreed with the Neutral commenter: this is a waste of community time. Worse, I'm especially put off by the Q1 answer: the tools are sought to make ArbCom re-election easier and to make presumed resumption of ArbCom activities easier, but this is not in any way a rationale pertaining to how this user having administrative tools would be an administrative benefit to the community, just a rationale for why they'd be of benefit to the candidate. If anyone who had not already been an admin and Arb came here and asked for admin tools specifically so they could run more easily for ArbCom and have an easier time as an Arb if elected, they'd be laughed right out of the room. Me posting this as an oppose is perhaps somewhat symbolic, since the WP:RESYSOP time limit at WP:BN has not expired. I started drafting it as another Neutral. But the more I think about it, the worse this seems – both as to personal-benefit focus and as to firing up a community-time-consumptive process for no sensible reason. So I'm going with Oppose on general principles. This is just too weird to me. How much attention and showing of approval does one person need? If WTT thinks their ArbCom re-election chances are high, then just run for re-election and get the tools back by RESYSOP request if successful. Being elected would already be a demonstration of community trust, making the point of this RfA entirely moot. If WTT doesn't think their re-election chances are high, then the rationale for this RfA is again moot, since no other rationale has been offered but ArbCom. There is no scenario in which this RfA served a useful function.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've addressed my opinion of the "waste of time", the point of reconfirmation and the benefits of feedback, so won't cover that further, but your second "worse" point, I do agree with. I don't believe I need the tools - my use cases for them are few and far between, reading deleted content while on the committee is the most significant, my next most common use was history merges on a complete article re-write away from mainspace. I've made a few blocks and protections, but they're few and far between, not more than one or two a year. Simply, if I were not standing for Arbcom, I wouldn't be asking for the tools - hence my answer to question 1.
    Regarding an "easier" time at the election, I hadn't considered that. I ran successfully without an admin hat on in 2017, similar to this year, and only one term history. The userright may sway a few voters, but I would hope my track record of ~8 years on arbcom would sway more. WormTT(talk) 11:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is a highly trustworthy candidate, and I don't think this is a "waste of time" either as I highly respect those submitting to reconfirmation. However, I find the candidate has not sufficiently demonstrate an actual need of the tools, which is the first thing we tend to look at during RfAs. The candidate states at WP:ACE2024/C that their primary aim on the Arbitration Committee is to "strive to be a voice of reason on there" and that they've "never been a high-volume workload arb" and don't "expect to be one this time either". To me, although I think that would be a real asset to the Arbitration Committee, this means that the candidate will rarely need to read deleted content themselves. Of course, the tools will still be a bit handy, so I would welcome them reclaiming the tools at WP:BN. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the interesting things about WP is how Users seemingly say contrary things concerning 'the way things are', at any rate, see WP:NONEED. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps that is an argument to avoid, but I am unsure if someone who has never had the bits would be able to WP:PASSRFA without demonstrating a need. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sir Kenneth Kho: If you write {{Total admin actions|Worm That Turned}} it shows the number 1145. Of course basically no one truly needs those extra buttons, because everyone can just ask another admin to do something, but since they've performed 1145 admin actions, and people are happy with their work, it seems likely that they will use these extra buttons again in the future, which kinda sorta implies a need. Polygnotus (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that matters, I am looking into what they intend to do as an admin, not what they did as an admin. This means, if they had 0 admin actions, but intend to do xyz, it is passing to me, while if they had 10000 admin actions, but not intend to do much anymore, it is the opposite.
    I don't think it is fair to examine admin statistics in a fresh RfA, and it does not influence me in any way so I am using a strikethrough, but admin statistics don't help. Between 5 January 2022 (ArbCom entry) [1] and 4 January 2024 (admin resignation) [2], they had 4 pages deleted, 3 revisions deleted, 1 page protected, 1 protection modified, 4 users blocked, 1 user reblocked, 1 user unblocked, 3 user rights modified. 18 admin actions would be at most slightly probative if the trend is presumed to continue. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, I agree with @Sir Kenneth Kho in general, as I have said to SMcCandlish above. I would not be requesting these tools if I were not standing for Arbcom, my use cases are few and far between, and I believe there are significantly better administrators than I. I will note that I did use and intend to use the tool significantly for reading deleted edits, it's not logged, so it's hard to show, but both cases and private emails regularly require that ability to gain a full picture.
    I absolutely appreciate the feedback from Sir Kho, and feel it should be represented on this RfA. WormTT(talk) 11:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When the recall process passed, I digged through admins who stand for recall, I recognize your name as an admin in good standing. Then, I found bureaucrats who stand for recall, there are very few of them. I read through User:Worm That Turned/Recall process and found that yours is among the simplest and easiest, really similar to the process we have now, even though you had bureaucratship to lose. This was really admirable to me, and the ultimate sign of good judgment, but part of SMcCandlish's concerns brought me here, as you've said you're looking for candid feedback and to me there's no real chance of this RfA failing. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moral oppose this is a pointless waste of community time, our most precious resource. (t · c) buidhe 04:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Waste of time. Please ask at WP:BN instead — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From the nomination statement: I strongly believe that the administrator toolbox should not be a lifetime appointment, and had always intended to reconfirm at some point, and circumstances have come together to make that possible here. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MSGJ: Based on WTT's resignation statement, which states I'll note here that I intend this to be permanent, and should I wish admin / crat rights again, I will do so through the RfA / RfB processes., they waived their ability to ask at WP:BN. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only the crats can determine, at the time of a re-request, if it "by request" is an option. My non-crat opinion is that it is a stretch to call what happened "under a cloud". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that they certainly did not resign under a cloud, and I believe that they were in good standing at the time of their resignation. I'm now wondering whether there's precedence of someone saying "don't give me the tools back without RfA", later asking for them back, and it being granted or denied. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hey man im josh. Potentially very recently. Over the summer when I was dealing with mental health problems, I said on my talk that I didn't expect to return for 2-5 years and probably with a reconfirmation RfA. The reason I didn't go through with it was because I was improving and I was concerned that I would waste the community's time by doing so. Like with Harrias. It's kind of moot now that my resysop request processed last week, but I really think that the whole idea of reconfirmation being a waste of time is silly. Fathoms Below (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the only issue is that WTT didn't need to come to RfA, then IMO we don't have an issue. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong neutral - I believe WTT is a capable admin and should definitely have their tools restored. However, I’m opposed to the idea of this re-RFA. I would have preferred a brief discussion at WP:BN explaining the change in circumstances (like The Night Watch did), with a re-RFA iff the re-sysop request was denied. In my view, going through a re-RFA without a cloud or even a strong vote of no-confidence is a waste of the community’s time, especially considering that WTT was inactive for less than a year in this case. -- Sohom (talk) 04:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Strong neutral" is one of the sillier turns of phrase I've seen in a while. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reminds me of the expression "militantly pragmatic"; it sort of makes sense if one twists one's mind around it. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Who wants the honour of !voting "Weak neutral"? Har de har har. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strongest possible neutral, the only conceivable reason to ask permission to be let back in as an admin when they seemingly could have just waltzed in, is if this user is a WP:VAMPIRE.[Part of the RfA experience so far as I can tell is getting very confusing opposition, and I did not want you to miss out just because you've already demonstrated the ability to use admin tools, good luck!] Rjjiii (talk) 07:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rjjiii I am very disappointed in your !vote because the tally is currently 222/2/3 and you are responsible for that final digit being what it is! Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm very glad to see you back WTT, and of course as a former admin in good standing you're welcome to ask for the tools back in any way you see fit. That said, I find myself regretting the missed opportunity to open the door to non-admin arbs: had you stood for election without the bits (and continued without them), I think you'd still sail through, and that might have made it easier for others to follow. – Joe (talk) 09:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joe I ran without a hat in 2017 - specifically stating I hope running as a non-admin will help pave the way for future non-admins. Nothing has changed in the following 7 years, those who acknowledged the fact that I was not an admin stated that I was "basically an admin" because I could pick the tools up at any time. WormTT(talk) 09:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
  • This discussion is WP:SNOWing - time for an early close? I don't see the point in stretching it out the full 7 days, particularly with a lot of "Support - unnecessary" !votes. FOARP (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't (successfully) snow close normal RFAs, so I don't know why (or how) we'd do it here. At 128/0/1, I'd say anyone who finds this RFA a distraction or unnecessary can safely unwatchlist it, or not participate. I suppose the point of stretching this out is that, maybe, someone will eventually give Dave the feedback he desires, beyond the "WTT rules" he's been getting so far. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we start snow closing RfAs, pages like WP:RFX300 would waste away. Girth Summit (blether) 22:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There will always be at least five of us. Cullen328 (talk) 08:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather depends on how many oppose !votes there are, no? Neither Tamzin nor Floq's RFA could have been SNOW-closed. FOARP (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No objection from me if a 'crat wishes to end this per "SNOW", I have received a few useful pieces of feedback plus a ridiculous amount of validation. That said, as far as I'm concerned, this was a real reconfirmation RfA, and I was, and still am, prepared for the possibility of failure - when I started this process, I believe I locked in to it - and I don't believe there's any precedent for "withdrawing as successful", nor should there be because we've had candidates get off to a flying start and end close to the line. WormTT(talk) 10:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's a good idea and I don't like the idea of a precedent being set to snow close RFAs. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unsuccessful RFAs can be SNOWed because once sunk low enough for that, there is no coming back. We never SNOW a successful RFA because some voters take a number of days to formulate their thoughts, and we shouldn't pull out the rug from under them. Also, the trajectory of RFA support % always tends downwards (if it changes at all), so a successful RFA can turn borderline or unsuccessful. Granted, that is unlikely in this case, but we still do not SNOW successful RFAs. arcticocean ■ 20:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. Worm That Turned is clearly qualified to be an admin, but to the extent that !voting "support" would be an endorsement of the decision to run a reconfirmation RfA, I do not wish to cast such a !vote (nor do I wish to !vote neutral, implying that his qualifications are borderline). As with recalls, a reconfirmation system only works effectively when it's in some way mandatory, not just an opt-in thing for those (like WTT) who can clearly pass. So I don't think this sets any sort of useful precedent, as anyone who might be affected by it (i.e. at risk of not passing) just won't follow it. Voluntary reconfirmations like this (I consider this voluntary even if locked in by the candidate's past promise) use up a lot of community time compared to a post at BN. At best they provide some feedback to the candidate and at worst they're an excuse to seek validation. I don't think either goal justifies the ask of the community. Promising to run a reconfirmation RfA, rather than just going with the normal rules that would have required one anyways in the situation the candidate expected, was a mistake, and I do not wish to encourage others to behave similarly, so I arrive at the decision to abstain. Sdkb talk 23:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree that this does not move us towards the goals of mandatory RRfA, I think the feedback is helpful not just for the RRfA admin, but also for other readers. The validation is likely good for moral, not just for the RRfA admin, but also for those who get to provide it. McYeee (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If editors seek feedback, I wonder if there is any way we could try to facilitate that that doesn't lead us back to the failed WP:RFC/U. I don't think reconfirmation RfAs are the best approach. Sdkb talk 23:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought RFC/U was a useful process, but it failed for at least some of the same reasons as WP:MEDCOM, namely that it did not have "teeth" so one could just ignore it and face no consequences. It's probably too late to revive that idea, it has been replaced by the bloodsport at ANI. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @McYeee: What is the difference between the two signatures you've posted in your question? I'm on dark mode and they look the exact same to me. Pinguinn 🐧 00:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's odd. On Safari on my Mac, Worm's Current signature renders in black on dark mode, while the one I proposed renders in whatever color the text is (black in Light mode, white in dark mode). I stole it from 0xDeadbeef; I wonder if they know why it doesn't work for you. Incidentally, the fact that your name is always in black text doesn't cause a readability problem because of the background glow. Whenever I touch CSS, I always walk away wishing that it was easier. McYeee (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks different for me (Chrome 130 on Android 13), although I question why we don't just use class="skin-invert". charlotte 👸♥📱 07:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, my signature appears to me as white text with black glow so clearly our browsers are at odds. I'm using Chrome on Windows, so it's probably just a function of our browsers using different rndering engines. Pinguinn 🐧 07:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It works fine in my Chrome on Windows. However, that's with the new dark mode. If I use the dark mode gadget, both links are white. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 10:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your signature does not appear as white text with black glow with the new dark mode (shown as Color (beta) on the Appearance sidebar), it is shown as black text with blue glow instead.
    If you are using the dark mode gadget, that might be why. My signature was used such that it works on the new dark mode. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has the worm really turned? How could we tell? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travellers & Tinkers (talk • contribs) 15:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has now been suggested that WTT may be a vampire, or alternatively a were-worm. Is no one going to ask about this? I would, but I'm afraid I might get an answer. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Something something WP:ASPERSIONS! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Worm_That_Turned_2&oldid=1257323840"