Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk.

Note: Although this page is under extended confirmed protection, non-extended confirmed editors may still comment on individual requests, which are located on subpages of this page.

if nominations haven't updated.

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Graham87	59	13	4	82	Open	10:11, 24 November 2024	6 days, 14 hours	no	report
Worm That Turned	272	5	9	98	Open	09:47, 18 November 2024	13 hours	no	report

Current time is 19:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC). —

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Graham87	59	13	4	82	Open	10:11, 24 November 2024	6 days, 14 hours	no	report
Worm That Turned	272	5	9	98	Open	09:47, 18 November 2024	13 hours	no	report

Current time is 19:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC). —

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.

This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.

One trial run of an experimental process of administrator elections took place in October 2024.

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.

About RfA

Recent RfA, RfBs, and admin elections ()

Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	Tally
				S	O	N	%
Voorts	RfA	Successful	8 Nov 2024	156	15	4	91
FOARP	AE	Successful	4 Nov 2024	268	106	242	72
Peaceray	AE	Successful	4 Nov 2024	270	107	239	72
Sohom Datta	AE	Successful	4 Nov 2024	298	108	210	73
DoubleGrazing	AE	Successful	4 Nov 2024	306	104	206	75
SD0001	AE	Successful	4 Nov 2024	306	101	209	75
Ahecht	AE	Successful	4 Nov 2024	303	94	219	76
Dr vulpes	AE	Successful	4 Nov 2024	322	99	195	76
Rsjaffe	AE	Successful	4 Nov 2024	319	89	208	78
ThadeusOfNazereth	AE	Successful	4 Nov 2024	321	88	207	78
SilverLocust	AE	Successful	4 Nov 2024	347	74	195	82
Queen of Hearts	AE	Successful	4 Nov 2024	389	105	122	79

The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.

Nomination standards

The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience). However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.

If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.

Nominations

To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.

Notice of RfA

Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}} on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en.

Expressing opinions

All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account. Other comments are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not extended confirmed may be moved to this section if mistakenly placed elsewhere.

If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".

There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.

To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.

The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

For more information, see: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats § Promotions and RfX closures.

Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.

In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process. In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.

In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way". A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.

If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.

Monitors

In the 2024 RfA review, the community authorized designated administrators and bureaucrats to act as monitors to moderate discussion at RfA. The monitors can either self-select when an RfA starts, or can be chosen ahead of time by the candidate privately. Monitors may not be involved with the candidate, may not nominate the candidate, may not !vote in the RfA, and may not close the RfA, although if the monitor is a bureaucrat they may participate in the RfA's bureaucrat discussion. In addition to normal moderation tools, monitors may remove !votes from the tally or from the discussion entirely at their discretion when the !vote contains significant policy violations that must be struck or otherwise redacted and provides no rational basis for its position – or when the comment itself is a blockable offense. The text of the !vote can still be struck and/or redacted as normal. Monitors are encouraged to review the RfA regularly. Admins and bureaucrats who are not monitors may still enforce user conduct policies and guidelines at RfA as normal.

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 19:48:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

---

if nominations have not updated.

---

Graham87

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (59/13/4); Scheduled to end 10:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Monitors: theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Nomination

Graham87 (talk · contribs) – Okay, this one is a little different. We have a new policy, WP:RECALL, which allows the community to force an admin to stand for reconfirmation. Graham has made some errors in judgement and he has the dubious honour of being the first admin ever to attract the requisite number of signatures on the petition, so here we are in uncharted waters. To be clear, the concerns raised in Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Graham87 are not easily dismissed as trivial or vexatious. Concerns raised mainly focused on Graham's approach to new users and over-zealous or heavy-handed blocking. Graham has pledged to step back entirely from blocking and focus on other areas, and of course we now have a new process to hold him to account if he doesn't live up to his promises! Elsewhere, Graham does some excellent technical work that is easily overlooked. He is one of a vanishingly small number of people who import edits from old databases, he performs a lot of history merges, and he works to help other blind users navigate the site through his work on accessibility. I'll let him and my co-nominators tell you more about that. I'm here to tell you that, despite legitimate concerns raised during the recall process, Graham is still a net positive as an admin and should retain the community's confidence. He has sought to address the community's concerns and refocus his activities to avoid similar problems in future, which is all we can ask for. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Co-nomination statement

I first met Graham87 when I was working on rewriting Miriam Makeba, and that it eventually became an FA was due in no small part to Graham's careful and diligent polishing. At the time, Graham had already been an admin for a decade, so this is not a position I ever expected to be in. So much for expectations: the recall occurred, and here we are. As with Harry above, I do not dismiss the concerns brought up at recall. I agree that Graham was too harsh with his blocks and warnings. When we discussed it, however, Graham was very considered and self-reflective, which is exactly what you want to see in an administrator. He has committed to stepping away from blocking, but also to recalibrating his approach to newbies in general: and our conversations on the subject have convinced me this recalibration will happen. Graham has been a valued contributor for a long time. He has over 300,000 edits (included deleted edits); he is one of very few people working to preserve the history of our oldest articles; he tracks administrator activity; and he is too modest about his content contributions, which include polishing and maintaining prominent pages as well as creating a variety of shorter pages. I am confident Graham will remain a large positive presence in the admin corps. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Co-nomination statement

Graham87 is a valued editor, and a capable administrator with a very specific set of skills for which he needs the tools. While I was initially not convinced of the recall in the first place, I changed my mind after the block of Mariewan and the justified follow-up on the recall page. Baffled by that block, I wasn't going to support, let alone co-nominate, but after a few days I saw that Graham was really going to change his tactics, and committing to not use the block tool was the right thing to do--that he is willing to give that up was pretty much a requisite for me in order to support. Here we are: Graham has indicated how he is going to change his approach, and no doubt there will be eyes on him to make sure he keeps that promise. In the meantime, I support this nomination. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Co-nomination statement

I am not an admin and not familiar with all of the rules and regulations here, but must admit I was quite shocked to read that Graham87 had been recalled as an admin. In my experience he has been nothing but helpful and showed good judgement in when to sanction editors, and only blocking in fairly extreme cases, when they were causing continual and annoying disruption to other editors. Over the years he has joined me in discussing problematic edits without blocking (such as an issue with the Lin Onus article, and a more recent one where the DAB for "14" eventually needed page protection). I do so much editing that I tend to forget many specific incidents, but I have never observed any of his actions that seemed over-hasty, and in my experience his judgement has appeared sound. Anyhow - I accept that there has been a problem recently (without trawling through the whole story, for which I don't have the time nor the experience to judge as an admin), but as he appears to have responded to the criticisms and modified his approach, my vote would be in favour of keeping a valued, experienced, and useful admin. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your words of support. I discussed these two instances with you but I think it's worth noting that, in the "14" incident, I also gave the IP range involved a short, sharp block; I obviously won't be doing that now and will report such a situation to other admins at the appropriate place. I've taken the liberty of adding links to the message. Graham87 (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept; thank you all for your lovely nominations and for continuing to have faith in me. As discussed above, this re-request for adminship is being carried out because I was subject to the first ever admin recall petition (initiated on 27 October), mostly focusing on my treatment of newbies). It passed with the requisite 25 signatures on 7 November, many of which were added after my block of Mariewan (talk · contribs) the previous day, which was way outside community norms. Subsequently, after much soul-searching, I've decided that I'll pledge to avoid blocking and have significantly reduced the number of pages on my watchlist, so I can refocus on my technical contributions on this site, especially my work on the early history of Wikipedia pages (more about that in the answers to the questions). ). The recall process is brand-new, had some inevitable teething problems, and has caused much controversy. However, it's now time for the community to decide whether they still trust me to be an admin. One thing that won't change, regardless of the outcome of this process, is my commitment to Wikipedia; I plan to continue editing this site no matter what happens here. My ranking at #5 (among human editors) on the longest consecutive daily editing streaks is a testament to that. I have never edited Wikipedia for pay and have no plans on doing so. Graham87 (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

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 being an administrator?

A: To refocus on what I'm best at: my technical work, sometimes known as Wikiarchaeology, mostly imports and history merges , often of old pages as early as the dawn of Wikipedia. I'll say more on that in my answer to the next question.

As touched on in the nominations and my nomination acceptance statement, due to recent events relating to my admin recall petition, one thing I'll pledge not to continue doing is blocking users, as it's caused extreme controversy, especially regarding my treatment of newbies. I'll do no blocking at all whatsoever from now on; instead of delete/block/protect, my core toolset will be delete/report users/protect. I'd be happy for someone to make me a big honking banner for my user/talk pages to this effect, with appropriate alt text, of course. I've taken 1,173 pages (mostly articles) off my watchlist, which is where I had found most of the users I'd blocked, in my first watchlist purge since 2007. I should therefore find far fewer potentially sticky situations on pages that really don't interest me that much. I've also hidden many block links in my common.css.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Probably my wiki-archaeological work; if I had to pick a single example, it would be rewriting the page about Wikipedia's oldest articles, which was previously like this. More generally, I've done many history merges and imports, especially of old pages (see my page history observations and import notes). I'm not just stuck in the past though; I also respond to requests at the requests for page importation noticeboard, which mostly gets requests from the German Wikipedia (where importing is wildly popular). As a result of these operations, I've done the highest number of imports (by a long way) and the third-highest number of undeletions of all time according to the admin stats page. I think that it's important that edits be attributed as much as possible and my importing/history-merging operations help with this. There's a lot more work to do in this area, particularly importing the August 2001 edits. As I'm one of the few importers on here, I could theoretically do page imports (but not history merges) with or without adminship, but imports are much easier with admin tools, which make it possible to undo any mistakes, and sometimes both imports and history merges are needed to deal with old pages, especially those with CamelCase titles (for example see the relevant logs at "Normal distribution"). [. My favourite history merges of all are those I find organically; a recent major example was at Madonna: Truth or Dare on 11 November.

As for content, I find writing for Wikipedia scary because of how widely its content is copied so I don't do so much of that, but out of the articles I've worked on by myself, among others I'm most proud of my work on the article about the jazz drummer Kenny Clarke which previously looked like this), related articles such as one on a group he was in, the Modern Jazz Quartet, which was previously like this, and articles about the area around Busselton in Western Australia where I now live (along with work on the Busselton article itself, which previously looked like this. I've also created articles as well, not just about the local Busselton area (my best probably being the article about the locality of Ludlow, but also about other Australian topics like the violinist Brenton Langbein and, going further back, the political journalist Alan Reid. I don't initiate content recognition processes but the latter article got on DYK and, as noted above by Vanamonde93, I helped them to get the Miriam Makeba article to featured status. I enjoy tying up loose ends on articles; for example when Vanamonde created the article about the South African musician Mackay Davashe, who wrote songs for Makeba, I tracked down his German Wikipedia article and used it to expand the English page. (Side note: The Wikipedia Library and the resource request page are amazing projects and have helped me greatly over the years).

I'm proud of a few other areas in which I contribute on Wikipedia. Firstly, I've done long-term work on the pages related to accessibility, where as a blind screen reader user, I advise editors on how to best make articles accessible and test proposed changes. My latest major win in this area was making fraction templates read out properly with screen readers and voice assistants. Secondly, whenever I go to an article's talk page, I like to check that its earliest useful comment has been archived properly. On occasions that has led me to do general archive cleanup, especially retrieving plenty of early text, like at Adolf Hitler's first talk page archive, and such work is sometimes aided by admin tools. Finally, I regularly update the former administrators pages, where the ability to view deleted contributions has occasionally been useful to double-check an editor's last editing date. I've written much more information about my Wikipedia journey at my personal Wikipedia timeline.

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: Yes, absolutely. It's hard not to edit this site without running in to conflict sooner or later, despite our best intentions. My admin recall petition highlighted my harsh treatment of newbies, which I'm willing to work on improving; in particular, I'm willing to become more lenient about issuing warnings. I've tried to comply with the advice about the meaning of each warning level regarding good faith (or otherwise), but I've become too quick to assume bad faith when more patience and explanation was warranted. Also, regarding my block of Mariewan that turned the trickle of signatures on my recall petition into an avalanche, I was hyperfocused on that user's edits and failed to think about or notice either the situation around me or the human being on the other side of the keyboard. Going forward, if this adminship reconfirmation succeeds, I'll be hyperfocused on my pledge not to block users. Either way, I'll endeavour to advise them more clearly about where they're going wrong on Wikipedia (and give them positive feedback when they're doing things right).

---

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 theleekycauldron

4. Full disclosure, I am acting as monitor for this RRfA – monitors are only barred from voting, not asking questions, but if people think that this shouldn't be kosher, I'm happy to strike this question and/or step down as monitor. Is your commitment to avoiding the block button a personal pledge, or a topic ban that can only be appealed to the community should you wish to resume?

A: Interesting question; I hadn't thought of the "topic ban" angle. I was going to make it a combination of both, in a way ... a personal pledge *combined* with a note to the community if I wanted to resume blocking. But I'd be OK with making it a formal topic ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graham87 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

5. Please confirm that the pledge/topic ban about the block tool includes pblocks?—S Marshall T/C 11:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

A: Yes, partial blocks are included as well. Graham87 (talk) 11:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Nineteen Ninety-Four guy

6. What makes Wikipedia suck?

A: The edits that disrupt it, whether made with good or ill intentions, especially those that last so long they become visible to many readers. I won't encounter so much of that now. Graham87 (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from MSGJ

7. You and your nominators have referred to your valuable work importing edits. To what extent would you be able to continue doing this if you are not an admin, for example, as an importer?

A: I addressed this in part of my answer to question 2, in the text beginning "I could theoretically do page imports (but not history merges) ...". Graham87 (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Optional questions from GTrang

8. If you are willing to do so, would you start recall petitions for other administrators?

A:

9. Do you intend to also stop unblocking users in addition to blocking them?

A:

Optional question from JJPMaster

10. Would you be willing to agree to any enforcement measure for your pledge not to block, similar to what Lustiger seth agreed to in questions 4 and 5 of their RfA?

A:

Discussion

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Graham87
• Requests for adminship/Graham87 2

• Links for Graham87: Graham87 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Graham87 can be found here.

---

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. Support – I have followed this process with great interest, not because of the details of Graham87's supposed wrongdoings, but because I have been eager to see how editors treat and use the opportunity to recall administrators. What is the recall process intended to do? Editors generally agree – or at least really ought to agree – that (1) administrators perform an important and necessary set of tasks that enable the project to function, (2) all else being equal, it is better to have more administrators than less, (3) the general lack of a formal hierarchy on the project means administrators can and often must make decisions at their discretion, and (4) administrators are elected by editors and thus they must exercise their authority in line with expectations and the best interest of the project. A recall process that is fit for purpose should (1) allow editors to express dissatisfaction with an administrator's actions, (2) provide that administrator with an opportunity to modify their approach, and (3) failing that, allow editors to remove them from their position. The process should be primarily corrective, not destructive. Graham87 is clearly a very distinguished contributor to the project, has used administrator tools productively for many years, and has much to contribute as an administrator. He has given us every assurance that his future use of the tools will reflect the concerns raised by the 27 editors who signed the recall petition – not concerns I share. I have every confidence that Graham87's future conduct will be exactly what he has promised, and see no reason any editor would doubt this. Any editor intending to vote against this re-RfA must present some very convincing evidence for why we should distrust Graham87, and I do not expect any evidence of that kind will emerge. Once re-confirmed I look forward to seeing Graham87 contribute as an administrator for many more years. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Support This clearly shouldn't become a rehash of the discussion on the validity of the whole recall process, so Imma shut up about that. In the occasions where I have encountered Graham87 I have found him to be to be civil and effective. It was quickly clear from discussion during the recall process that Graham87's blocks were pretty much the only area of concern raised and given he has acknowledged the issue and agreed to step back from the detonator box, I'm confident there's nothing more to see here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
3. The pledge not to block makes what would have been a difficult decision for me into an easy one: Graham does important work in other areas and has shown no signs there of the unfortunate lapses in judgment that got us here. If you'll forgive me my soapbox, I think this is a great example of the recall process working as it should: we've found a good compromise between warnings and desysop (something that's been very elusive for ANI, ArbCom, etc.), and the community as a whole gets to decide whether that compromise is an adequate one. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Support without reserve. Favonian (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
5. Support - in particular per HJ Mitchell who outlines the circumstances and benefits of this candidacy well. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
6. Support, glad to support after not being here for Graham's original nomination. It's a chance to heep praise on a very good administrator. His depth of achievement on Wikipedia's history alone is worth the tools, and with the pledge in place, and a working history of excellence, the project has and will benefit greatly. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
7. I'd support this, subject to absolutely strict and rigorous compliance with the pledge not to touch the block tool under any circumstances at all.—S Marshall T/C 10:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
8. Has done invaluable work to preserve and document the history of Wikipedia, would be a shame to discontinue it now. Nardog (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
9. Support. Kablammo (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
10. I've only ever had positive experiences with Graham87. I'm not saying they've never done anything wrong – who among us is perfect? – but even admins should be allowed some "errors is judgement" as the nom puts it. Huge net positive for the project, both as an editor and as admin, and I would really hate to see them be the first casualty of RECALL. (Then again, if this RfA reaffirms, as I hope and believe it will do emphatically, the community's trust in Graham87, then I guess something good will have come out of it.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
11. Support - no concerns. Should never have been recalled in first place. If anything is so serious, it should have gone to ArbCom. GiantSnowman 11:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
12. Support - will add further comment later. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
13. Support - Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 11:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
14. Support No doubt Grahams87 ability with the tools and that he will continue to be a positive user of the mop. Gnangarra 12:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
15. Support People should be allowed to make mistakes and learn from them. Polygnotus (talk) 12:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
16. Disproportionate. —Cryptic 12:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
17. Support : No red flags here. They were amazing as a sysop :) — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
18. Support per Polygnotus, HJ Mitchell, DoubleGrazing, &c., &c. ~ Lindsay^Hello 12:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
19. Support Have always found Graham87 to be diligent and helpful. The positive response to the recall is to be applauded. On balance I think a real benefit to the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinevans123 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
20. Support, per nom. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
21. As nominator. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
22. Support. Graham's wiki-archaeology work is valuable and requires admin tools. He recognises that in his zeal to protect the encyclopaedia, he has strayed far from community norms and expectations for administrators, and has pledged above that he will no longer use the block button. That promise enables me to support his continuing as an admin. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
23. Support specially the way that the issues have been answered by the candidate - in view of the resolve to modify behaviour, there is no hindrance in any way to a very positive future as a very effective admin. JarrahTree 13:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
24. All of the issues were in relation to blocking, and Graham has promised to not block people anymore. With that in mind, I think his other contributions that require the mop are valuable and should be kept. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
25. Support per nom.Clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
26. Support per Yngvadottir . Like and trust Graham. A hard-working, dedicated member of the community. Admins are needed. Ceoil (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
27. Issues resolved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
28. Support Has a need for the tools because of his technical work, and has responded well to the recall by pledging to avoid entirely the area that got him into trouble. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
29. Support per the noms. Absolutely a massive positive to the project, and like said in the nomination, if he did decide to start blocking people unjustly (which I have absolutely zero doubt that he won't!!) then it's a pretty easy thing to fix. CoconutOctopus talk 14:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
30. Support. The comments from the nominators and Graham himself convince me that reconfirming him would a net benefit to the project. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
31. Support Graham87 has made some mistakes - so have I, so I'm sure has everyone, we all have off days. Those mistakes do not, in my view, outweigh the enormous amount of positive work he has done, and they do not make me doubt my trust in him. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
32. Support, though I think Serial Number 54129's concerns about the bundled nature of the admin toolset are valid. To me, this nomination (with its baked-in self-imposed restraints) is an imperfect solution, but probably the best that we will get until we are ready to start talking about uncoupling some of the badly needed admin functions from the block button. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
33. Support mostly per Drmies. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
34. Support I had the pleasure of interviewing Graham87 a few (10? 12? 15? time flies!) ago for signpost and was impressed both by his thoughtful responses as well as by his obvious desire to make Wikipedia the best possible compendium of human knowledge. Reviewing the recall petition, I still see the same thoughtful and self-reflective person I saw then. While he is not perfect (who is?) and has likely made mistakes like all of us do, Graham87 is more than a satisficing admin choice and I strongly support this request for retaining the admin tools. RegentsPark (comment) 15:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

    Oops correction. We actually discussed the possibility of an interview but it didn't actually work out as Graham87 has reminded me on my talk page. My memory is obviously fuzzy (but this was a long time ago!). Apologies, but I did research Graham87 at that time and stick with my impressions of him! RegentsPark (comment) 16:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

35. Support Hey man im josh (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
36. Support - useful admin, promises to change, and no more bad blocks. PhilKnight (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
37. If we de-adminned everyone who had an ANI thread opened on them we would have zero admins left. I'm not thrilled with a couple of the blocks, but nothing noted in the recall seemed egregious enough to warrant a desysop. Wizardman 16:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
38. Weakly, especially so after reading Aoidh's comments bellow. At the moment, I take Graham at their word on not using blocks anymore and changing behavior that led us here. Typically I don't really buy into unbundling—I'm in agreement with SN's oppose—but Graham's work on imports and history merges is literally invaluable. If we can have sysops with active sanctions on them then I think we're okay here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
39. Support—Apart from the issues brought up at the recall petition, Graham is an excellent administrator and has served in that capacity for over 17 years. In light of his pledge not to block anyone, I see no reason not to trust him for many more years to come. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

    However, I would like to register my strong disapproval of his block of Mariewan, as outlined by Aoidh in the oppose column. That entire fiasco was... shocking, to say the very least. It was an egregious enough lapse in judgement that I honestly considered switching to oppose. I've decided to reaffirm my support, but I really don't want to see any more of that kind of attitude, especially towards newer editors who technically didn't even do anything wrong. Kurtis ^(talk) 19:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

40. Support: by nominations and for keeping Wikipedia:Requests for page importation alive. win8x (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
41. Support the "renom" if you will, and vehemently oppose this recall process, which is too easy and lacked proper discussion from the user base that it impacts: admins. Consider this 50% a protest vote against a ridiculous process. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
42. Still convinced that a Wikipedia where Graham87 has the sysop buttons is better than one where he does not (he is the only admin working in certain areas). A lot of his admin work is in areas far removed from the block button, so I hope staying away from that won't harm his productivity much. (As an aside, there should be a way out of a no-blocking pledge, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it). —Kusma (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
43. Per their pledge to avoid blocking people in the future. Graham, this is a "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" situation: I am trusting you that you will avoid blocks. I would add that you should have WP:BITE be a hyperfocus; good faith new contributors are the lifeblood of Wikipedia. But your work at WP:RFPI is fantastic, and we cannot let perfect be the enemy of the good. Cautious, but strong, support. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
44. Support, in opposition to WP:RECALL. — Voice of Clam (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
45. Support, as this is a stupid reason for an RFA, I don’t feel the need to give any rationale. Fish+Karate 17:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
46. Support a net positive to Wikipedia as an admin, best wishes Josey Wales ^Parley 17:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
47. Support, per my nomination statement. I also want to explain why I am unpersuaded by Serialnumber's oppose (though it is a reasonable position to take, and I am not asking him to change it). In a new candidate, I agree that we would see the errors in judgement that Graham made while blocking as disqualifying. Like it or not, though, he isn't a new candidate. He has a 20-year track record that we must judge. And in all the evidence brought forward at recall, and in my own digging, I found no evidence of judgement issues in other areas. Furthermore, the lengthy track record also gives me a great deal of confidence in his promise to recalibrate, which is in sharp contrast to the behavior of so many other editors of long tenure who were confronted about their behavior. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
48. Support The lesson seems to be learned and Graham has chosen to step away from blocking, which is his decision but I believe he should still use his tools for dealing with obvious vandals. I believe the long years of experience and valuable representation is more than enough to deserve a second chance after realizing being in the wrong. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
49. Support. Graham is a great font of institutional memory, and the most productive person working on incorporating content from the earliest days of Wikipedia into the modern software— maybe the only person: the Importers group has a bus factor of two, and our other Importer seems to work primarily in transwikification.
    Both of the first two recall petitions are of the "abyss gazes back" genre: defending the project against the faeculant influx of SEO spam, LLM slop, promo autobios, et alia induces cynicism and corrodes AGF. Some of Graham's admin actions were heavy-handed. He promises to do better, and I see no reason not to take him at his word.
    More generally – perhaps uncharitably – that's a tradeoff I'm willing to accept. No one wants good faith newcomers to be driven off the project; no one wants SEO garbage articles or promotional biographies further cementing the misimpression that our project is an advertising stream. Personally, I'll accept a few misfires. And it's been made clear here that the misfires will be ceasing or dramatically reduced.
    On the meta level, I'm finding deep irony that Graham is being dragged before the community under threat of having his mop ceremonially snapped in twain, very shortly after concerns were brought up and he was warned and promised to do better— the concerns in question being that he was too hasty in ramping up consequences before adequate warnings and time given for improvement.
    Yall see that? We're not better. Folly Mox (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
50. Support. I get uncomfortable when I see the words "net positive" brought up onwiki. It's too often dubious calculus used to excuse contributors who drive away others. In Graham87’s case, his work with importation was a common justification advanced by those who supported him remaining an admin. It’s impossible for any one person to weigh that against improper blocks with the potential to dissuade new editors. To err on the side of caution, I opened the petition. With that being said, now that he's promised not to block users, Graham87 isn't just a net positive—he's all positive.
    There is an argument to be made that an admin with a prior history of serious misuse, including after it was pointed out, should not have the mop. However, the idea of NOPUNISH is fundamental to our blocking policy; the underlying philosophy, that we should block only to prevent further issues, seems applicable to all removals of permission. There’s no point deysopping Graham87 on the basis of past mistakes if they won’t be repeated.
    In short, let’s let bygones be bygones. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
51. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
52. Support Volten001 ^☎ 18:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
53. ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
54. Support Excellent admin. Also, this recall process is a farce. ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 18:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
55. I did not see anything in the recall petition that concerned me. Graham seems to be strict but not unreasonably so, responsive to criticism, and attempting to adapt. It would be a shame to lose him. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
56. Graham87 has been doing admin stuff that most admins don't do, like importing revisions. There are missteps by Graham87 but all these could have been resolved first before unilaterally opening a recall petition. I find that this recall petition is premature in many ways, with Graham87 still being able to block another while the recall petition was on going and that the voluntary restriction from blocking anyone that Graham87 put on himself here could still have been extracted from him at other traditional venues like ANI or ARBCOM and without all this drama and time sink. – robertsky (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
57. Support - Outside of the block button, Graham's contributions are an overwhelming net positive. I have faith that the blocking problems are now in the past, and if they aren't, then per HJ Mitchell we have the tools to cross that bridge if we have to. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
58. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
59. Support - a petition process which only counts supports is fundamentally flawed - Wikipedia has always operated by consensus, not by counting votes. I honestly have no opinion on Graham87 but I am opposed to the process, therefore I support this reconfirmation. If editors can pile on Worm That Turned's RRFA opposing solely on the basis of opposition to the process and not the candidate, then I can support on that basis too. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I've always gotten along with Graham87, and I appreciate immensely his work on accessibility (which Wikipedia as a whole should strive to do better on), but there are too many bad blocks in my view, in addition to the recent ANI threads; Sep 2024 Sep 2024; I also found these thirteen blocks for ten years for IPs from 2023/2024: first time blocks for ten years: 1, 2, 3, 4; blocks escalated to ten years: 5 (escalated from 2 years to 10 years} – 6 (escalated from 1 month to 10 years} – 7 (escalated from 1 year to 10 years} – 8 (escalated from 3 months to 10 years} – 9 (escalated from 3 months to 10 years} – 10 (escalated from 6 months to 10 years} – 11 (escalated from 6 months to 10 years} – 12 (escalated from 3 years to 10 years} – 13 (escalated from 3 years to 10 years} I didn't look any farther back. Several editors have correctly pointed out that there were some errors in judgement. I'm just not convinced that he requires the tools, considering his recent errors in judgement. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
   • I've replied with a clarification in a new thread on the talk page. Graham87 (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Until we unbundle the toolkit, an admin who can't be trusted with one aspect of it should not be an admin. Indeed, that'd be a pretty conservative position—in a normal RfA. We wouldn't approve a new candidate who has demonstrated the same "errors in judgement" as Graham87 (in fact we've rejected candidates for less). "All we can ask for" is that they perform as every other administrator is expected to perform, and the moment we start carving out exceptions, we're going to start treating editors unequally (well, more so than RfA does already). I also do not believe the "import[ation of] edits from old databases" is sufficient reason to grant advanced rights (e.g. the legal implications pertaining to WP:VDC) when the admin candidate has to give assurances that they will not actually be able to act like an admin in order to pass the same "RfA like process" that other admin candidates must undergo. SerialNumber54129 15:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Graham has bitten far too many inexperienced users to the extent that their actions can't be dismissed as "errors in judgement," but rather a reflection of their approach. I can't trust an admin that placed an inappropriate block while a recall petition about their problematic blocks was ongoing. Stedil (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Agree with SN above. We don't exist in a world where all the unproblematic tools can be bestowed a la carte, so we have to evaluate candidates based on their entire tool use. The other thing is that the pledge to not block and contrition only came after many editors suggested problems with Graham's approach, which led to the recall. I simply don't consider apologies made under duress after the winds have shifted particularly inspiring and hopeful for future behavior. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

   If it took a recall to get Graham to see his errors, so be it. At least he eventually did see them. I was on the fence at first, but seeing the co-nom statements by multiple established editors gives me renewed good faith. If we're wrong, we can do this over again (as far as I know). ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

   Actually, it would take a full year before we can recall him again if he passes here. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

5. Sometime ago, Graham87 had blocked an editor who made nearly 1,200 edits, after edit warring with him.[1] The editor's talk page access was revoked by Graham87 after he mentioned that WP:INVOLVED is being violated by Graham87.[2] This happened after he was already criticized back in May 2020 for imposing indef block on an editor with more than 15,000 edits after edit warring him.[3] Graham87 pretended to understand these issues when they were raised but he won't unblock the editor (with 1200 edits).[4] The recent series of issues with his admin actions confirm he should not seek this RfA. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
6. Graham spent years issuing harsh blocks with abusive comments, including many against good faith editors. This was raised at AN/I, and he continued issuing blocks while the AN/I discussion about his blocks was ongoing. At that point, it became clear that he lacks the judgement necessary for the tools and that we can't trust him to self-correct. Because of this, a recall was initiated. He then continued issuing blocks while the recall discussion was ongoing. A tenth of Graham's behavior would be enough to tank a non-admin going through RfA. If you've ever opposed an RfA on the basis of conduct or temperament, but you support this one, then your hypocrisy is damning. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
7. The fact that it took a (successful) recall for Graham87 to finally realize their behavior shows me that they are very trigger-happy with blocks, a major concern. As alien said, if I RfA'd after consistently doing things Graham's done, I'd 100% fail. This is way too soon after the recall in my opinion, not nearly enough time to see if they actually stand by their word about hostility. If I made 100 bad AfC reviews and promise to change, does that mean I actually will? No, not at all! Trust is shown in more than just words, and I cannot support at this time. Their statement made earlier today on this RRFA's talk page, where they say "Some of the given escalation figures about my blocks don't take into account the full picture", shows me that they still haven't learned. This user has been given numerous chances by the community to do better and they haven’t, so why give them another? E_F⁵ 17:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
8. Per TBUA charlotte ^👸♥ 17:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
9. Wikipedia needs protection from people with your editing style. That may seem unnecessarily harsh, but it is what Graham87 told a new editor for putting a comma where it didn't belong and a reference in the lede. They allude to this when discussing the block of Mariewan in their response to Q3, but the issue isn't just the block but also the disproportionate hostility that came with it. This isn't a one-off occurrence, it is a pattern of inappropriateness that occurred while there was an active recall petition ongoing, meaning even under ongoing scrutiny Graham87 still felt this was an appropriate and proportionate response to an editor putting a reference and commas in the wrong place. Even when it is appropriate to block an editor or address an issue, there is a right way and a wrong way to go about doing that, and Graham87 consistently chooses the wrong way. You can address an issue without noting how harmful you find it or asking that established editors be the ones to revert you. Even with a commitment to not block editors, comments made as an admin still have an effect on editors, especially new editors who see an admin telling them how terrible their edits are. Despite being unblocked, User:Mariewan hasn't edited since. I can't blame them, and nothing in this RfA has convinced me that anything is likely to change. I'd much rather Graham87 show that there has been change and come back later for an RfA than assume that though nothing else has prompted a change in behavior, this time it's somehow different. - Aoidh (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
10. Per SN54129 and David Fuchs. Ajpolino (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
11. per Serial Number. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 18:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
12. Concerns are too large – if this were a regular RFA (as opposed to an RRFA), I'd oppose, so that's what I'm doing here. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 18:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
13. I just don't see any other choice.Graham had every opportunity to improve his approach before the recall petition ever started, and just when it looked like the petiton would not pass, he did exactly the thing he was being asked not to do again while fully aware his actions were under the microscope. This startling lack of self-awareness gives me no confidence that he should be an admin. That he promises not to use the block button is too little, too late. An admin who, by his own admission, can't be trusted with one of the most important tools in the admin kit should not be an admin. I don't think Graham is a net negative overall, but he is not fit to be an admin. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Truly, because I can see both sides of this. (Disclosure, I closed one of the recent ANIs about Graham's blocks and in that close, I said I thought they'd learned from feedback.) I also initially disagreed with the recall petition. After the block of Mariewan, I struck my opposition (such as it really is with a petition) but did not move to support recall because I was concerned about the block when all eyes were on their edits and what it meant for their admin actions when fewer eyes were on them. Graham subsequently requested the discussion be closed because the number of signatures had been reached and I didn't get to further assess my recall POV. I am in much the same place here. There are editors who I wholly trust nominating Graham and I like the questions they (including Graham) addressed up front. There is also a lot of good work that Graham does including importing. However I remain concerned that the impulse that lead to the "block now, ask later" isn't something that's going to change after a long history of that being Graham's MO. He has promised several times over the last few months that he'll do something differently, and I believe that he intends to change and isn't just saying what we as a community want to here, but I'm not sure it's possible. I don't think there's any malice, which coupled with believing he's a strong admin outside the blocks, is why I'm here and not opposing. Star Mississippi 14:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
2. I mostly agree with Star Mississippi's comments above. I am conflicted here, because Graham's technical work is invaluable and something that (to my knowledge) basically no other admin does, but I have a hard time supporting an RFA that is essentially contingent on "I'm not going to use this part of the toolset." My vote my change, but this is where I'm sitting right now. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 15:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
3. While I am sure Graham is a good faith editor and would use the admin tools only for the benefit of the community, I am not entirely comfortable with the idea that someone has a tool with which they made controversial blocks in the past. And questionable blocks are a serious thing. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
4. I must concur with Star Mississippi and ThaddeusOfNazareth. I don't see myself voting oppose, but I am concerned that the precedent of biting here is too severe. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

General comments

• Hi, my name's leeky and I'll be your server monitor for this week. As a reminder, this is a reconfirmation RfA as set out by WP:RECALL. The threshold for success is 60%, not 70% 75%. Between 50%–60% is at bureaucrat discretion. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Not 75%, you mean? :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

   Self-trout! you'd think after running two RfAs and nominating three more, I'd know that bamboozled from recently updating this module, i think. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• If, at some point in the future, they'd want to use the block button again, should they do another RFA? That seems reasonable to me. Polygnotus (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think that will be a waste of everyone's time. If we do not trust Graham, we should just oppose them and be done with it.

  Quoting a comment I read else elsewhere recently... "Admins should not be forced to bargain away pieces of their toolkit to get supports". Even if we treat it as a formal TBAN (and I do not), a simple consensus at WP:AN or similar is enough to undo the ban itself. If it's an informal agreement to not use the tools, I can see anywhere upto a simple AN notification being sufficient, depending on things.

  There is no provision for admins to be "forced" to RFA again, other than exactly the conditions listed at WP:RECALL. In fact, the policy was proposed (partially) out of a desire to remove "informal pressuring" such as this. Soni (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  I certainly don't want to pressure anyone, formally or informally. I am just curious how things like that work and I haven't seen that situation before IIRC. Polygnotus (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• A question about future actions. We've received assurances in this RRFA about the editor avoiding blocking entirely in the foreseeable future. Alright then, not exactly a statement of one's capability to do the right thing, but I guess it will work in this instance. But what happens if that promise is not held to? How does the Recall rules work for a successful petition and subsequent successful RRFA? Is another petition banned from being formed for six months/a year even if similar actions occur again after this, leading to only Arbcom as an option? Silverseren^C 16:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, Arbcom is the only option based on the policies as they stand.

  I believe there's no easy way for the community as a whole to distinguish between "Same problems happening again" and "Improvement but not universally agreed on". So the net benefit from bringing the admin for recall again is lesser, and the net downsides from potential triple jeopardy is higher. So if the community as a whole has already affirmed the candidate in RRFA, and also issues continue to exist; in my opinion, Arbcom is best suited for that anyway. Soni (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  I mean, in this particular case, it is quite easy to tell. Since they've agreed to not issue blocks whatsoever, then any issuing of blocks would be a direct violation of that pledge. Is that something that really needs to go to Arbcom? I feel like the community should be capable of dealing with it. Silverseren^C 17:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  I understand your point, but to play devil's advocate: suppose five months from now, Graham makes a block that's utterly obvious, and any other admin would have made it too. (Let's say it's vandalism after a final warning.) Is that cause to start another recall petition? Probably some will say yes, because he broke confidence and should have reported it to AIV, and some will probably say no, that no harm has been done and there are multiple ban carveouts for obvious vandalism anyway to prevent unnecessary bureaucracy. Now imagine him making a block that's a little less obvious than that, or another that's a little less obvious still. Do you see where this is going? Most likely, in practical terms, how a violation of his pledge is handled will depend on the circumstances and the community's mood, and who can judge that but the community? And now we're back to the original problem. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  The community could enact an editing restriction based on consensus for any reason, so it could theoretically enact a sanction in that form. (*) Although there are some editors who disagree, others (including me) feel that current policy does not allow the community to enact an editing restriction preventing the use of administrative privileges through a consensus discussion (thus the adoption of the recall process), other than through site-banning. So if the community thought removing administrative privileges would be an appropriate remedy, it could only do so by site-banning, filing an arbitration request, or, after a year, filing another recall petition.

  (*) I'm having difficulty, though, in conceiving of a suitable editing restriction that would also be compatible with the community exhibiting trust in the admin's judgement. isaacl (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• How should support votes be treated whose rationale is an objection to the recall process entirely rather then any comment on the user? From my perspective, that behavior seems rather WP:POINTY. If that issue isn't considered in this Re-RFA, I think it would be important to discuss it in the inevitable workshop on this process. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Or those who don't give any textual reasoning at all and just vote, without even referencing anyone else's vote reasoning to at least show support for that explanation. A terrible look for any editor that does that, IMHO. Silverseren^C 18:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  I assume that if this reaches the discretionary range, bureaucrats would discard those votes. If it doesn't, I don't see a mechanism. This is an RfA, and like normal RfAs, you can support or oppose for basically whatever reason you want. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

---

Worm That Turned

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (272/5/9); 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. Worm^TT(talk) 08:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I do accept. Worm^TT(talk) 09:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

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. Worm^TT(talk) 09:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

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. Worm^TT(talk) 09:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

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. Worm^TT(talk) 09:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

---

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. Worm^TT(talk) 14:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

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. Worm^TT(talk) 15:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

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". Worm^TT(talk) 16:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

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. Worm^TT(talk) 19:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

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. Worm^TT(talk) 19:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. Worm^TT(talk) 10:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

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. Worm^TT(talk) 10:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

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. Worm^TT(talk) 10:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

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 Worm^TT(talk) to Worm^TT(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 Worm^TT(talk) 10:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

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: I've generally stayed away from admining contentious topics as I have spent so much time sitting on the committee, implementing and updating them. As such, I'd rather not risk WP:INVOLVEment in the areas - plus, in addition, the topics don't particularly interest me. I'm afraid I can't say I expect to spend my time at any contentious topics. Worm^TT(talk) 14:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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: Not only have I never been in there, I can confidently say I have no idea what goes on in there. Worm^TT(talk) 14:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Bobby Cohn

16. You mention in response to the first oppose that your use of the tools would only extend to your need during the arbitration committee. Should you not be elected, or after your term at Arb Com, would you maintain the tools or give up the mop again?

A: Should I not be elected, I have every intention of carrying on as a normal Wikipedia editor, and expect I'd hold on to the tools - picking up new areas where they may be useful. Similarly at the end of my term - if I'm not burned out. If I expect to step away from Wikipedia, I will freely give up the tools - I do not like having additional user-rights on a site where I am not actively using them. Worm^TT(talk) 16:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Martinevans123

17. Topical and somewhat urgent question: what's your view on the Wikipedia:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation and the RfC here? Many thanks.

A:

Discussion

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Worm That Turned
• Requests for adminship/Worm That Turned 2

• 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.

---

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)
2. Obvs. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Yep. Benison (talk) 10:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Support Chetsford (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
5. Support. - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
6. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
7. Support. no-brainer. Nobody (talk) 10:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
9. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
10. Support No concerns Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

    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)

11. I don't think that Vermes is obsolete. Polygnotus (talk) 10:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
12. Support - absolute no brainer. GiantSnowman 10:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
13. Toadspike [Talk] 10:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
14. Ratekreel (talk) 10:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
15. Support. Sam Sailor 10:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
16. Support, per nom. - Ampil ^{(Ταικ • Cοnτribυτιοns)} 10:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
17. Support Leijurv (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
18. Support – 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
19. Obviously. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
20. This is a pretty easy one :) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
21. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
22. Support. The candidate has my trust. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
23. Support. Coeusin (talk) 11:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
24. Support Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

    I'll just add, this was no waste of time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

    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!! Worm^TT(talk) 11:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

    @Graeme Bartlett: At first glance I thought that this was an issue over Worm putting an incorrect licensing, but we have bots to tag and reduce file sizes so this doesn't seem like a big deal to me as Worm marked it as non-free. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

26. Easy. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
27. Support, no brainer. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
28. To ArbCom you go, good luck. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
30. Daniel (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
31. Happy to have you back! Bobby Cohn (talk) 12:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
32. Support - another no brainer. 13 new admins this month, wow. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

    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)

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)
34. Support - Donald Albury 12:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
35. Support --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
36. Strongly charlotte ^👸♥📱 12:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
37. i think it's safe to say this is a trustworthy user lol ... sawyer * he/they * talk 12:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
38. Support DanCherek (talk) 12:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
39. Support: No questions from me. BusterD (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
40. Good to have you back. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
41. Support Wham2001 (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

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)
44. —Kusma (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
45. Has not lost community trust since last time. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
46. —Ingenuity (t • c) 13:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
48. Support: Absolute no brainer. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
49. Yeah ~ Lindsay^Hello 13:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
50. Support. JPG-GR (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
51. Support. AKAF (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
52. Support. Skynxnex (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
53. Support. Drmies (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
54. Support. Duh. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
55. Support. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
56. Support. Calm voice of reason. Binksternet (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
58. Support - Dave is a good spud. Carrite (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
60. Support Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
61. Support, obviously — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 13:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
62. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
63. Support, absolutely. Goodnightmush^Talk 14:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
64. Support Duh. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
65. Support trusted user. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
66. Support instant yes. Blythwood (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
68. Support (ec X2) Really not necessary, but happy to support anyway. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
69. Support. 〜 Askarion ✉ 14:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
70. support^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
71. Support. No issues. Llwyld (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
74. Support —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
75. Yes, please! HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
76. Support --v/r - TP 14:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

    Regarding the comments about "total waste of time" - no one was obligated to !vote here. Anyone who viewed it as a waste of time could've optimized their time by not participating.--v/r - TP 16:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

77. Support - Not necessary, no big deal. FOARP (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
78. Support for sure. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
79. Support. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
80. Support Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
81. Support - strongest possible based on editing and admin history. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
82. Support. Consummate professional who I would trust with my life. — GhostRiver 16:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
85. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
86. Support, especially for the well-written and objectively correct answer to Q6. ;) NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
87. Welcome back. – bradv 16:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
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)

    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. Worm^TT(talk) 16:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

    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)

    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". Worm^TT(talk) 19:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

    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)

    +1 Sdkb ^talk 18:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

89. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
90. Easy confirmation ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
91. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
92. Support - Happy to see you around again! ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 17:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
93. Support. Yes! TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 17:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
94. Support. Always viewed WTT as a sensible voice of reason. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
95. Can't think of any rationale befitting the occasion, honestly. Not even for a joke oppose. JavaHurricane 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
96. Support - nbd Mujinga (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
97. Support ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
98. Hi, I don't think we've met. Fathoms Below (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
103. Support – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
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).
106. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
107. Support, seems good. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 18:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)

     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. Worm^TT(talk) 19:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

110. Support. Schazjmd (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
111. Arguments from the neutral or oppose section do not convince me. Obvious support.--A09|(talk) 19:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
113. support. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
114. Support. Station1 (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
115. Frostly (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
116. Support: The community got it right the first time. Glad you're back. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
117. Support Welcome back Worm. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
118. Support SportingFlyer T·C 19:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
119. Axios! -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
120. Support No apparent issues, welcome back. EPIC (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
121. Support What 28bytes said. Perfect4th (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
122. Support Nothing I could say that hasn't already been said - per nom. Reconrabbit 20:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
124. The equivalent of Michael Jordan’s return. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
125. Worm is thoughtful, empathetic, and ethical and I am very pleased to see him returning. arcticocean ■ 20:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
126. Support nobody is perfect, but WTT comes closer to that than most. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
129. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
130. Support good to have an old-timer back along with so many new faces. Mccapra (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
131. Of course Girth Summit _(blether) 22:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
132. Support: Knowledgeable, experienced candidate. Thank you for offering to serve.--Diannaa (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
133. Support Thank you for offering to re-RFA.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
134. Support - welcome back. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
136. Support Welcome back Josey Wales ^Parley 22:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
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)

     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 Worm^TT(talk) 11:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

138. Support Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
139. Support --Enos733 (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
140. Support for culinary reasons. GMG^talk 23:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
141. Support Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
142. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
143. Support of course. Thanks for volunteering again. Netherzone (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
144. Support of course. Welcome back, my friend. :-) Katie^talk 23:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
145. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
146. Naturally. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
147. – robertsky (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
148. Support. Stedil (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
149. Support Pinguinn 🐧 00:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
150. Support without reservations. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
151. Support resysop. JuniperChill (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
152. Support Alexeyevitch^(talk) 00:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
153. SilverLocust 💬 01:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
154. Support: a lot of respect for going through a reconfirmation RfA. --Yodin^T 01:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
155. Support. Trustworthy track record. Altamel (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
156. Support Tazerdadog (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
157. Support now that Q8 has been satisfactorily answered. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
158. Support unneeded but happy to have you back. Hobit (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
159. Support. Best news I've heard all week. bibliomaniac15 03:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
161. Support – Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
162. Support of course. I'd forgotten he wasn't. Johnbod (talk) 04:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
164. Support And good on you for commiting to the process! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
165. Support committed to the process and rules they set out for themselves. Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
168. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
169. Support, welcome back. Graham87 (talk) 07:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
170. Support great contributor —Surturz (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
171. Support and thank you for volunteering. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
172. Support. Fully qualified candidate (obviously). Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
174. Support of course. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
176. Support -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
177. Support - Welcome back. Red Phoenix ^talk 13:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
178. Support - easily Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
179. Support. The name is familiar. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
180. Support ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
181. Support ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 15:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
182. Support Commendable move; no concerns. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
183. Support Great contributor, great admin, and a person of their word. spryde | talk 18:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
184. No problemo. All the best. Volten001 ^☎ 18:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
185. Support We've awaited your return. Flibirigit (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
187. I have no concerns. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
188. Support for their skillful understanding of sandwiches and their contributions in said areas. Panini! • 🥪 20:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
190. Support Yes, please.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
191. Support — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
192. Support. Obvious choice and no issues when they had the bit. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
193. Support TheWikiToby (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
195. Hell, yeah Miniapolis 23:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
196. Support Andre🚐 01:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
197. Happy for the occasion to thank you for all your service to the project. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
198. Support trustworthy pillar of the community. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
199. Support Per all of the above! Johnson524 02:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
200. Mute gesture of approval. DS (talk) 04:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
202. Support - Obviously. Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
204. Support ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
206. Support – proven excellent admin with valid reasons for pausing and resuming duties. Certes (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
207. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 10:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

     While I will remain in support, I do find myself strongly endorsing Buidhe's point in the oppose section. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 10:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

208. Support I view self-nominations as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Nick (talk) 10:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
209. Support - demonstrably a good person to have as an admin. LukeSurl ^t c 10:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
211. Without question and given issues around legacy admins, choosing this step reflects well on Worm. Star Mississippi 14:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
212. Support- Without reservation.   Aloha27  talk  14:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
214. Support per above.Kablammo (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
215. Support a rarity, excellent admin and actual reasonable Arb. The Rambling Man (Been a while, I know......) 16:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)

     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)

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)
219. Support Already thoroughly proven out. And this is a good process. North8000 (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
220. Support Welcome back. Schwede66 18:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
221. Support I trust the user implicitly. --BDD (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
222. support ToadetteEdit (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
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 (block_talk) 00:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
227. Support without reservations. Go forth and do good things again. Loopy30 (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
229. Support - I am One of Many (talk) 04:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
230. Support This may be the most straightforward RFA I've ever seen. Tamwin (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
231. Support. Nothing more to add. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
232. Maliner (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
234. Support - Always reliable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
235. Support No concerns at all. Acroterion (talk) 12:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
236. Support. Not necessary, but a nice gesture. Malinaccier (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
237. Support. Glad that the worm can Sysop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BarntToust (talk • contribs) 15:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

     [5] Spencer^T•C 20:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

238. Support Yes please, and cut them apart and let the pieces regrow into clones so we can get more admins of this caliber. Ravensfire (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
239. Support WTT still has my confidence. Jehochman ^Talk 16:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
240. Support We need as many admins as possible, providing they are suitable - and this has been demonstrated previously. SpookiePuppy (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
241. Support WTT is a very thoughtful person, knowledgeable and supportive, and would make an outstanding admin. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
242. Support No concerns. Spencer^T•C 19:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
243. Support Consistently impressive. Almost never find myself disagreeing with their rationale, which is always clearly articulated. Ceoil (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
244. Support No concerns over WTT (past/future) conduct as an admin. -- KTC (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
245. Having greatly respected Worm for well over a decade, I've nothing of substance to add. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
246. Support. Always level-headed. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 01:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
247. Support. Sure, why not? Good luck with the mop. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 02:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
248. Support Hands Down. -- Amanda (she/her) 05:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
249. Support - Nicely qualified.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
250. Support welcome back :) never had issues with you when you were a sysop so supporting. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 11:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
251. Support sure, no issues, always liked their attitude. KylieTastic (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
252. Support, running up the score a nudge. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
253. Please and thank you. No issues with the reconf decision, former crat anyway. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
254. —Alalch E. 18:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
255. Support Very honorable to force yourself to get reconfirmed! Good luck! Avishai11 (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
256. Support, no issues with history of this editor's contributions. On the other hand, I am unconvinced that it is necessary to ask the community to do this, when there was no issue in having the tools returned without asking hundreds of people if it's okay. Risker (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
257. Support Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
258. Support. Having observed WTT as an admin before, am amply confident of returning tools to them. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
259. Support Why not? -Fastily 03:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
260. Support Welcome back and don't forget to try Miracle Whip. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
261. Support No reason to think theyll misuse the tools. And good choice to hold a RFA, participating in these has a high community building to effort ratio. Time spent thinking how to vote on one of these isn't really fungible with the time & energy needed for article building in my view, at least not when its a no brainer candidate like WTT. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
262. Support. Obvs. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
263. Why not? — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 00:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
264. Without hesitation. SQL^{Query Me!} 05:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
265. Support. No doubt about it. Welcome back as admin. Donner60 (talk) 07:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
266. Support. Seems fine. No problems here. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 08:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
267. Support: glad to see this wise editor back on the scene. PamD 09:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
268. Support – The nominee is a former administrator who wants the mop back. From what I know, correct me if I’m wrong; but the nominee was in good standing when they resigned. The nominee even ran the Adopt a User program. No reason to think that we can’t trust them with the mop now. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 11:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

     Not to mention the fact that the nominee was formerly an ArbCom member; and formerly a CheckUser and oversight. These are positions that take a lot, a whole lot of trust. And if Worm was trustworthy enough to be on Arbcom for crying out loud, and resigned in good standing; they can probably be trusted with admin tools again. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 12:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

269. Support - the candidate is more than qualified for the mop, was an administrator before and was highly regarded as a great administrator. Moreover, as Hey man im josh noted in his comment, the candidate intended his resignation to be permanent and pledged to submit himself to RfA should he wish to receive the mop again. That does not appear frivolous, it's just staying true to one's words. I highly value this consistency. Brat Forelli🦊 15:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
270. Support. Nominee has a proven record of using the tools to improve the project. Wikipedialuva (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
271. Support per WP:NOBIGDEAL, but with a caveat - I think this is a waste of community time. Guettarda (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
272. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

   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. Worm^TT(talk) 11:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

   Thanks for getting back to me. The user-right will definitely sway voters. In my own two candidacies for ArbCom (in which I was the never-an-admin who got closest to being elected) a consistent sticking point for commenters making it clear they would oppose was that I lacked the admin bit, and I was repeatedly pressured to run for RfA despite having no other particular interest in admin tools and activities.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

   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)

   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)

   @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)

   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) [6] and 4 January 2024 (admin resignation) [7], 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)

   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. Worm^TT(talk) 11:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

   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)

3. Moral oppose this is a pointless waste of community time, our most precious resource. (t · c) buidhe 04:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

   I'm not going to oppose someone I think should be an admin, but this is basically where I sit as well - we're looking at (WAG) 10+ hours of community time: enough to write one or more really in-depth and high-quality articles, spent giving someone something they already had. This re-confirmation makes a pretty strong case as to why this should not be done in future. FOARP (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

   Most of the 200+ support voters have left a short, if any, rationale, and have then left the thread. Presumably, they went back to editing articles or wherever else they want to volunteer their time. The only possible avenue for meaningful time-wasting here is in protracted discussions - the only one of which I see is about whether or not this is a waste of time.

   On the other hand, "admins that have lost community trust" has been a common topic around here as long as I've been editing. As long as this doesn't become a fad among admins who have no obvious reason to suspect they've lost community trust, I have no issue seeing something new tried once. Heck, maybe even twice. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

   But this is not someone who has lost community trust, and is in fact likely to be successfully re-elected to ArbCom, so your implied "if" condition here is not met. You're also engaging in something of a "paradox of tolerance" fallacy here: it cannot be the case that we are unable to object to wastes of community time simply because the objections themselves require some time. If you're in court and about to be sanctioned for filing a string of frivolous lawsuits (which are unlawful for pointlessly wasting court time and government resources), good luck arguing that the judge isn't in a position to consider whether you've been wasting the court's time because that itself is a further court time expense. The preventative medicine of spending some limted time now discouraging this sort of thing is virtually guaranteed to save us much more, potentially unlimited, time later.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

   Agree with User:PhotogenicScientist. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

4. Apparently did not resign tools "under a cloud". Could have just requested the tools back via BN. What a total waste of community time. But hey, if the goal was to get a confidence boost by the amount of supports, rather than run an RFA that had to happen, mission accomplished. Steel1943 (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

   I'm saddened to see such a bad-faith read of the situation from such an experienced editor I've usually had such good interactions with. I don't understand what could inspire such a response... Sergecross73 msg me 19:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

   Because he was forced to come to this RFA and offer his opinion, thus wasting his and everyone else's time.

   Others, somehow, untold thousands of them, are not commenting here at all. I'm not sure how they were left out of the progrom that forced the rest of us into this. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

   I must be out of loop with the wiki-drama world, because this didn't alleviate any of my prior confusion... Sergecross73 msg me 23:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

   Nah, I'm just pointing out the ridiculousness of this line of argument. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

   IDC, read my talk page. The fact that anyone still edits here is a risk anymore. Guess we all might as well get our jollies while we can. Steel1943 (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

   That explains your mindset, though still not the content of your disappointing comment. I won't press further though, as comments like yours only reflect poorly on you, not the nomination, and it doesn't appear that you even mind. Sergecross73 msg me 17:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

5. Per SMcCandlish, and "I don't believe I need the tools", and "Simply, if I were not standing for Arbcom, I wouldn't be asking for the tools". I don't think being an Arbcom candidate is a valid reason for adminship. The answer to Q1 is based purely on being an arb, which they currently are not. I am aware that they could have likely gone through a resysop request and gotten the tools back that way, but seeing as they decided to go through RfA then they should face the same scrutiny of any other RfA, including whether the tools are actually needed, which they plainly are not. BugGhost🦗👻 18:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

   There is no such thing as demonstrating a need for the admin toolkit. Editing the Wikipedia requires the use of the toolkit, whether you use it yourself or get an admin to use it for you. WP:NONEED: Wikipedia benefits from having as many trustworthy administrators as possible. 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. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Waste of time. Please ask at WP:BN instead — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

   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)

   @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)

   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)

   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)

   @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)

   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)

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)

   "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)

   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)

   Who wants the honour of !voting "Weak neutral"? Har de har har. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

   "All I know is my gut says maybe." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

   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)

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)

   @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. Worm^TT(talk) 09:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

   Fair point. Still, I hope. – Joe (talk) 10:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

5. I respect Worm and think that he should be an administrator (which is why this is neutral and not oppose), but agree with Barkeep49 above regarding use of Community time. In addition, technical access to the administrative toolset is not necessary to be a member of the Arbitration Committee given that CU/OS gives the ability to view deleted revisions (it's a lot more debatable whether you should have the administrative experience, though). The only need for the toolset is to carry out {{ArbComBlock}}s, but they're collectively carried out anyway. Given that deleted revisions is effectively the main reason for this RfA, perhaps a request for feedback at AN or random talk pages would've been better than this seven-day exercise. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
6. I agree with the general sentiment that this is not needed. – Ammarpad (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
7. Meh. Worm, you clearly continue to be one of the most trusted community members on administrative matters (taken broadly). And I won't call this RFA useless since I respect you are following through on a promise you made is submitting to it. However, given the strength of your voice here, you missed an opportunity to drive some sort of beneficial discussion with this whole exercise. Example: you could have highlighted your strengths and wiki-accomplishments, but also reflected on any weaknesses or what you've learned to do differently during your time here (for the benefit of others). You could have taken my Q7 and replied more forcefully, what concerns you, what those shifts indicate, etc. You could have taken a position on the Asian News situation, not just mentioning it obliquely until Q17. I'm not criticizing you for not doing any one of these things specifically, just wishing you could have done something like that, harnessing your stature for this discussion to be more than a 121,000 byte affirmation of your trustworthiness. That all said, welcome back. Martinp (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

   Thank you @Martinp I do appreciate that. I'll have a think to see if I can eek anything else out, but have been a little under the weather Worm^TT(talk) 22:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

8. I agree that the optics here kinda leave a bad taste in my mouth. I don't doubt that this user will use the tools properly so I know not to oppose, but the immediately jumping into a re-rfa after leaving for a while gives me pause. Also I'm familiar enough with RfA to know opposers and neutralers get badgered, so I'll say now not to bother doing so as I do not intend to follow up on this RfA. Wizardman 16:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
9. Not voting. I wish WTT well, and he’ll again be a great arbitrator if successfully admitted back to Arbcom, but this RFA feels like an unseemly and unnecessary exercise in validation. Fish+Karate 17:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

  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)

  If we start snow closing RfAs, pages like WP:RFX300 would waste away. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  There will always be at least five of us. Cullen328 (talk) 08:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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. Worm^TT(talk) 10:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• @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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• Has the worm really turned? How could we tell? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travellers & Tinkers (talk • contribs) 15:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I can tell you it has returned, if that helps?
    • This subthread took a turn. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• 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)

  Something something WP:ASPERSIONS! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• I'd have agreed an RRfA was in general a waste of time...until we developed the recall process. It's no longer a waste of time. Making sure the community still has confidence in you after an almost complete absence of a year is completely valid because someone could start up a petition about their concerns over that literally the day after you request the tools back at BN. And several editors have indeed questioned WTT about that exact issue. I think this is completely justified and probably very smart. The RfA is obviously going pass. A recall petition after requesting tools back? Maybe with a statement that "WTT has been gone for a year, fewer than 100 edits in that time. I think they should have RRfA'd." Would that too pass? At this point, who knows? Valereee (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yet another reason why the recall process is bad and should be abolished. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  There is a proposal at Wikipedia:Administrator_recall/Reworkshop#Minimum time before petition following resysopping at BN about this exact concern. fanfanboy (block_talk) 16:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• To throw out some (very rough) statistics: it took me about 15 seconds to leave my support. I've spent maybe 15 minutes cumulatively reading the discussion about whether this is a waste of time. I've spent another 15 seconds writing this just now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  15 minutes and 30 seconds? Our coverage of Botswana is forever damaged, most likely beyond repair. Shame on WTT and the amount of time he got you to waste. Dishonour on him, dishonour on his family, dishonour on his cow... GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, I've also been monitoring this on and off all week as well, so it's probably chewed up a similar amount of my time, including my !vote above. The Botswana point isn't quite as powerful as it might seem at first glance, however, because I imagine most of the people spending time here wouldn't have been writing about Botswana instead. Speaking personally, my "write about Botswana" wiki-session is very different from my "read and contribute to WTT's RFA" mode. I would do the latter while sitting on the train home from work, whereas the former requires assembling sources, meticulously writing stuff out, engaging brain fully etc.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Worm That Turned - Welcome back! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

---

About RfB

"WP:RFB" redirects here. For bot requests, see Wikipedia:Bot requests. For help with referencing, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert

{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}

into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.

While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.

Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.

Current nominations for bureaucratship

There are no current nominations.

---

Related pages

• Wikipedia:Administrators
• Wikipedia:Administrator elections

For RfX participants

• Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship
• Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship
• Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates
• Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination
• Nominator's guide
• Wikipedia:Advice for RfA voters
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Debriefs – RfA candidates sharing their RfA experience

History and statistics

• Wikipedia:RFA reform
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship by year
• Wikipedia:RFA by month
• Wikipedia:Successful adminship candidacies
• Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological)
• Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies
• Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies/Chronological
• Wikipedia:List of resysopped users

Removal of adminship

• Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship – Requests to remove administrator access for abuse and/or self-de-adminship
• Wikipedia:Former administrators
• Wikipedia:Desysoppings by month

Noticeboards

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
• Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

Permissions

• Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
• Requests for other user permissions can be made at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.