Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Worm That Turned

Worm That Turned

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (24/2/1); Scheduled to end 14:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination

Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – Hello. I'm Dave, but you quite probably know me as Worm That Turned. I've been on Wikipedia since 2008, an administrator since 2011 and a member of the arbitration committee since 2013. Over the years, a number of editors have suggested to me that I run for bureaucratship, and I've generally declined as I didn't see that I'd use the tool. I'm not so sure that's true any more, I've seen a number of times that I'd be able to help out with renaming users.
So, what qualifies me to be a crat? The role breaks down into three areas, renaming, requests for adminship and bot requests. I understand Wikipedia policy on all three - but breaking things down

1. With respect to adminship, I've participated in many over the years and I have always had utmost respect for the bureaucrat's role in those matters. I have been a long term advocate of improving the RfA system, being one of the chief participants and researchers in the 2011 attempt at reform. What I learned from that research though can be found in this report. My biggest achievement was the creation of Request an RfA Nomination, a page which I'm glad to see still gets used regularly. I've seen more than my fair share of RfAs and have done extensive reading around them, I hope that qualifies me for the role.
2. With respect to bot requests, this is my weakest area. I've done extensive research on bot policy when I was considering setting up a bot of my own User:Wormbot, though I ended up just using it for creating statistics. I've got the bot code built up on my computer, so I do have some empathy for the hard work bot creators do.
3. I've seen a reasonable number of user renames happening for privacy reasons over the past year and almost every one of them could have happened faster. This is where I'd really like to help out, at least in the short term.

I will spend a moment talking about my weakest point - real life has severely limited my time. There are things in this world far more important than Wikipedia, and I spend most of my free time focussing on them. I do check Wikipedia daily, but the majority of my time is spent responding to emails and reading around arbitration cases. I do apologise for that, but unfortunately I cannot think of a solution.
Finally, there's the important "why should you vote for me" bit - I'm boring. I don't rush into decisions, I weigh up all options, I listen to the voices of the community, I believe I can judge consensus. Really, what more do you want in a 'crat?

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:Worm^TT(talk) 14:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

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: Many times and on top of that I've read through hundreds of RfAs and the majority of discussions regarding the RfA process. The criteria for promotion is about 80% and the criteria for non promotion is about 70%. There's a bit of leeway permitted, the 'crats have a fair amount of discretion when the candidacy is between those two points. That's where consensus must be judged, giving appropriate weight to the seriousness of concerns, how well those concerns are addressed by the candidate / supporters. There's all sorts of things to look at, from canvassing to how many people switched votes, what sort of evidence has been provided and so on and so forth.

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

A: The important thing is to explain yourself, explain the logic behind your reasoning. That can take some time and the more contentious the decision, the more detailed the reasoning should be, looking at all sides of the argument and discussing them. It might make time, but it's worthwhile. Importantly, these really contentious decisions can be spotted ahead of time and should not be handled alone - the infamous "'crat chat" is very helpful. The knowledge and experience of the 'crat group would be invaluable in these situations.

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: I hope my reputation speaks for itself on this question, but in case it doesn't I will say that I hold myself to a very high standard. I do my utmost to not only be fair, but be seen to be fair, in everything I do, not least my work as an arbitrator. I have studied policy to the extent that I taught in my adoption courses, a course which has helped dozens of editors and versions of which have gone on to be used by many more editors (hat tip to Hersfold, who did the hard work). Similarly for my ability to engage with others, please do have a look through my contributions.

Additional question from Writ Keeper

4. So this is a question that came up on BN over the last couple of days. None of us who commented on it were particularly expansive in our reasons, so your reasons are the thing I'm interested in: if an admin resigns under uncontroversial circumstances (and thus is not obligated to undergo another RfA), but decides to go through one anyway and fails, would you s5ill restore their bit if they were to make a request at BN? If the RfA were to fall into the discretionary range, how would the "optional" nature of the request affect your decision with regard to closing the RfA? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

A: Ah, now that's an interesting thought. If it's a clear failure, then the administrator can be said to have lost the trust of the community and the current RfA should definitely supersede the previous RfA (the reason that the administrator would be allowed his/her tools back). Effectively, it's a "reconfirmation" RfA - and in general, we've seen in the past that the discretionary area gets a little bigger for reconfirmation RfAs. I personally don't agree with the extended grey area. I guess it really depends on why the Admin gave up his bit, how long ago and the context of the situation, along with the reasons behind the votes. Worm^TT(talk) 15:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Worm That Turned: Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Worm That Turned can be found here.
• Editing statistics are posted on the talk page. Tyrol5 [Talk] 18:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Obviously trustworthy enough and wants to use the tools. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
2. (Edit conflict for first support.) Worm That Turned is fully qualified for this role. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
3. Fully qualified candidate, and we've had delays after at least one recent RFA so an extra crat would be useful. ϢereSpielChequers 14:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
4. Clearly trustworthy and I believe he would be more than capable of performing the tasks fairly and effectively given my experiences with him.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
5. Support. Experienced and sensible. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
6. Support, but I did it before it was cool. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
7. Support Well-qualified candidate; time constraints are no problem, even for 'crats :-). Miniapolis 15:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
8. Support as per Collect's oppose !vote below. Most of those elements are exactly the reasons that would make him a good Bureaucrat ES&L 15:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
9. Support Of course. Renames can always use a few more eyes and it doesn't seem the process is imminently being transferred to stewards. benmoore 15:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
10. Support, obviously. He has done excellent work as an arbitrator, and I trust that he will bring the same care and attention to his use of the bureaucrat toolset. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
11. Support without reservation. In my experience, WTT is one of the most helpful, knowledgeable, and trustworthy users on this project.- MrX 15:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
12. I know this is a bit childish, but Strongest Support Ever. I think I recall asking Worm to run for cratship a while ago, and I'm happy that he finally decided to do so. He has the knowledge, the patience, the wiseness and thoughtfulness required for the job. — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 16:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
13. Support of course, but you're actually not quite boring enough and I dunno how you're gonna fit all those name changes, bot approvals, and hundreds of RfA closures in with all your work in another place ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
14. About time Worm -- Excellent candidate. Is a respected arbitrator, while also having created content too. Considering the low volume of RfBs these days, we could use a good admin as a bureaucrat too and Worm is cut out for the job. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 16:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
15. Support. Impressive contributions to the site, in multiple varied capacities. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
16. Support --Stfg (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
17. Support' reluctantly, not because I don't think WTT is qualified, but because as he has already noted, WTT is busy with many things and I'm not sure adding more responsibilities or demands on his time is necessarily a good idea. -- KTC (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
18. Support He's definitely well qualified for the role. Not sure if he'll have a lot of time to put into cratting, but granting him the tools certainly won't do any harm. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
19. Support No-brainer, considering the more significant hats he has already been trusted to wear. Widr (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
20. Support Heck yes! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
21. Support — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
22. Certainly. The time issue, which Worm That Turned openly disclosed in his self-nomination, is slightly concerning but the important thing is trust and I fully trust Worm That Turned. My observations of him have been more than positive and I think that he's a great admin with a strong track record and, thus, will be a great bureaucrat. Other than that small issue, I do not have any reservations at all and am very pleased to support. Acalamari 18:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
23. Support - is expounding really necessary? He's the total package ... Go Phightins! 18:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
24. Strong support  Roger Davies ^talk 18:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Collect (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC) Having noted his work as an Arb, his weakness in supporting WP:BLP, and his remarkable lack of concentration at a number of core Wikipedia areas other than WP-space and userspace, I fear I must oppose.
2. I think he is a good candidate and would normally support. However, being a member of the Arbcom could potentially put him in the position to have to recuse on cases if he was the one that performed the bureau function on the member. Besides a member of the Arbcom the access to perform these functions should be automatic anyway. Kumioko (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

   Just on that Kumioko, Arbitrators do not have access to that tool, and there are no sitting arbitrators who are 'crats. I would prefer there was one who had to recuse on occasion than none at all. Worm^TT(talk) 15:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

   We have had several instances where the same person was an arbitrator and a bureaucrat, and I don't recall that this has ever created any problems. (Also, the two thoughts in Kumioko's comment would seem to contradict each other.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

   What is so contradictory? That I think they are a good candidate and would normally support, that I am opposing because I think there is a conflict of interest to being a crat and an arb or that I think that the function of arbitrator should inherently have the access to the bureaucrat tools like they do checkuser and oversight? None of these contradict each other unless your simply trying to discredit my oppose vote, which isn't going to affect the outcome of this request anyway. Besides, what use are the tools to arbitrators anyway? Bureaucrats don't do anything that doesn't already have a clear consensus of the community. The only function Arb needs is the ability to desysop or remove a bot flag which as I said, they should already have inherently in their mandate. Yur better off just doing an RFC to engage the community on granting sitting arbs the bureaucrat tool to be used when needed based on the outcome of an Arbitration case. Kumioko (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for now.--MONGO 16:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)