Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Worm That Turned

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for bureaucratship. Please do not modify it.

Worm That Turned

Final (150/15/1). Closed as successful by WJBscribe @ 15:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination

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

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

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

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

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

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

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

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

3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

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

Additional question from Writ Keeper

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

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

Two questions in one from MONGO

5. What's the need for so many hats and if you're so busy why add another hat?--MONGO 19:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

A: The reason I've never applied to be a 'crat was that I never thought I'd use the button. I participated in most RfAs, so I would have rarely closed them, and I wasn't active in user renames. I'm not a hat collector by any means, and I realise that sounds hollow given that I seem to have them all. I've berated those users I've adopted when they've talked about "deserving" user-rights, as if they are some sort of status symbol. In the past I've specifically not applied for tools that I didn't think I would use.
So why add the 'crat flag? If you have a look at the answer to Smithers' question below, you'll see a situation I've found recently where the flag would be useful. It's not the first time it's happened, just the most extreme example. Worm^TT(talk)

Additional question from User:Smithers

6. Dave, you implied in your nomination statement that you could handle renames more quickly than they are being handled now, but also that most of your limited time on Wikipedia is dealing with ArbCom matters and e-mails. Looking in the long-term, do you really expect that you can handle bureaucrat duties such as renames more efficiently than they are being handled now?

A: My request has stemmed from a privacy rename passed to Arbcom at the end of October last year that needed Arbcom agreement. Somehow it got overlooked, and it wasn't until December that we agreed that it could be done from an Arbcom perspective. As the request was then passed to the 'crats mailing list, it took another month to actually be actioned. There's a number of places that this could have been tightened up, partially having someone on Arbcom who would take ownership of these requests when on the Arb list and partially having someone on the 'crat list to badger. In that sort of situation, I'd try to act as a liaison between the two groups rather than a gung-ho button pusher.
So yes, I do believe I could help improve the efficiency of 'crat duties - the ones that have to be handled off-wiki (along with any other privacy based requests handled on wiki). They are few and far between, but should really be handled faster. Longer term, once my term has finished, I would be more than happy to help out on the other 'crat duties, especially RfA.

Additional question from Chris Troutman

7. You've already made the case about what you can do with bureaucrat tools and I don't have a particular opinion about your admin-ship. To a large degree (though not completely) those office holders do not simultaneously overlap. I recall reading a comment that came out of your earlier RfA study that unbundling toolsets was a potential way to take the pressure off of RfA. You're now bringing the admin and bureaucrat offices together with this RfB. My question is, aren't the admins, 'crats, and stewards three separate groups for a reason? Chris Troutman (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

A: Actually, no. The bureaucrat role is an extension of the administrator role, just as checkuser and oversight are. While I believe it's technically possible to be a 'crat without being an admin, I don't know of any examples where that has happened. In reality, the 'crats role is absolutely tiny, they're most well known for adding and removing the admin flag, something that happens a few dozen times a year at the moment. Adding and removing the bot flag happens about as frequently. In reality, the largest amount of work they do is account renaming, which is a role most users don't even notice happening.
Unbundling the administrator toolset is something I support - to demystify it, make it less of a big deal. In general, the community sees the block tool as a big deal, and the Foundation sees the deletion tool as a big deal, but there's all the other stuff admins can do that could be moved out - such as allocating user rights or protecting pages. I know the WP:Template editor was the most recent example of something like this happening.
As for stewards, that's effectively a "global" bureaucrat - they have to work with many different language projects, and have almost nothing to do with this project any more (except adding and removing a couple of remaining userrights). Worm^TT(talk)

Additional question from User:DHeyward

8. This is more of a process question as we are in uncharted waters, thought not a big deal. As a sitting member of ArbCom with an expiry date (presumably because it has powerful influence and other reasons), you have nominated yourself for a position of more authority that will not expire after ArbCom. As a setter of precedent to avoid appearance of duress/impropriety/patronage, would you be willing to reapply for RfB at the end of your ArbCom session (i.e. no gap in the tools, just sit for renom)?

Answer: That's a difficult one, on the one hand I'd have no problem at all with a reconfirmation RfB on a personal level. I welcome criticism, it's the best way to learn. However, I'm not keen on the idea of "setting precedent" - Wikipedia doesn't really work on precedent, it works through consensus and Consensus can change. What's more, the community has shown distaste for reconfirmation RfAs - I think the general opinion is that the wrong people go for them. So, as an alternative, can I make the following suggestion? Come the end of my term, give me a nudge (I've got a terrible memory) and I'll start a discussion at WT:RfA, asking whether there is any appetite for me reconfirming my role. If there's appetite, I would happily step up for a reconfirmation. I've already stated I'd be happy to reconfirm my adminship just a couple of months ago Worm^TT(talk)

A: If you would sit for RfB, why not grant all ArbCom RfB, Steward, CU, etc, and have them expire with their term making it a part of community trust in the ArbCom election?

Answer: As I mentioned above, Steward is not an En.WP role, so not appropriate to give to Arbitrators. The functionaries (editors who CU and OS tools) are appointed by Arbcom - traditionally all members of Arbcom are offered the tools and can retain them if they wish when they leave the committee. Bureaucrat on the other hand is given by the community. I would certainly not object to the button being given to the committee members whilst they are in term, it would have rendered this RfB moot! However, there are some very strong arguments that Arbcom have too much power as it is, so I think it better that we individually request the button if we believe we would use it. Worm^TT(talk)

B: I'd like to hear other ArbCom members views of holding an elective office while seeking additional authority and if we should just grant it as a condition of ArbCom or make it mandatory that hats acquired during ArbCom be redone after ArbCom term runs out? --DHeyward (talk) 08:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Answer: I do not object to any other Arbs commenting here, but I have not notified the committee that I am running for bureaucratship, the majority do not know. Perhaps the general case would be best raised outside this RfB at WT:Arbitration Cormmittee? Worm^TT(talk)

I just found this. My assessment exactly mirrors Worm's, believe it or not. Arbs rarely require crat tools, and there is no reason to bundle that in. On the other hand there isn't anything which would exclude one from having both tools at the same time (or acquiring them.) NativeForeigner ^Talk 20:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

We actually aren't in "uncharted waters" here at all; we have editors who have served concurrently as arbitrators both in the earlier history of the Committee (Raul654, UninvitedCompany) and more recently (Rlevse, Xeno, Hersfold). It is sometimes helpful to have one person who has both roles, such as when ArbCom learns of a situation calling for a privacy-related rename or the like, but the vast majority of the time the roles are separate and independent of each other. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I meant "uncharted" in terms of acquiring the hat while serving. What's the likelihood of opposing a sitting arbcom member and is that decision influenced by the office he holds? It's not the hat that is uncharted, it's the timing. Whence the question about resitting for nomination or simply giving it to all arbcom like CU at arbcom election so effectively the hat is part of election. The hat itself isn't a big deal. --DHeyward (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I see the distinction you are drawing about the timing, but I still don't think it's a problem. If there were reason to believe that some hypothetical editor who was a sitting arbitrator and was running for bureaucrat was at risk of retaliating against anyone who opposes his 'crathood, then that editor should be neither an arbitrator nor a bureaucrat—but no one thinks that of Worm That Turns and I hope no one would think that of anyone. Sitting arbitrators run for reelection and some guide-writers oppose them and we certainly don't keep scorecards and grudges. In my view, being an arbitrator is not an especial qualification for 'crathood, but it shouldn't be an impediment to it either. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Given that none of Rlevse, Hersfold and Xeno served their full terms as arbitrators that's not really a compelling argument. (The first two left the committee prior to end of term, and Xeno went off-wiki for a while during it). NE Ent 13:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Ottawahitech

9. In regards to question 2: isn’t everyone equal on Wikipedia, so what does promote mean here? Does it mean that those who are promoted (and those who promote them) are more equal than others?

Answer: If by "equal" you mean, is every community member's voice given the same weight, then absolutely. Weight is given by the strength of arguments, not by userright held or edits made or any other measure. That's all well and good and leads to the argument that there's officially no hierarchy on Wikipedia, as anyone who's been here a while will agree. Of course, in the same breath, they'll also say "but of course there is, because the admins are abuse their power and this group controls these articles and that group just complains about everything" and so on and so on...
So, what does "promote" mean here (as opposed to WP:Promote which is about advocacy)? It means that an editor is sufficiently trusted by the community to be allowed a few extra tools. It's not a promotion in the sense of "being more important" but does give additional responsibilities and admins are held to a higher standard. There's definitely a difference, but whether it is a positive one is something that can be argued either way.
On a side note, I've never like the idea of "more equal". It's a thought provoking quote, but inherently goes against my tendencies as as a mathematician. What do pigs know of mathematics anyway...? Worm^TT(talk)

Additional question from Hawkeye7

10. Can a bureaucrat decline a request from ArbCom to desysop a admin?

Answer: No bureaucrat can be compelled to perform any action at all, so they always have the option of not doing it. Actively declining is a supervote, they would be putting their opinion above other bureaucrats and the Arbitration committee and is not something that should be done. The actual removal of the sysop bit is minor in the scheme of things, the decision and the responsibility for the decision has been made elsewhere. Worm^TT(talk)

11. Can a bureaucrat restore permissions to an admin desysopped at the request of ArbCom (per WP:RESYSOP since they have not "resigned (or become inactive) for the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions")?

Answer: No, they cannot. WP:RESYSOP is for situations where the administrator has had the permissions removed at his own request or through inactivity. Those permissions can be restored if they were not given up "under a cloud", i.e. "for the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions". There should be some wording which clarifies that it should not be used when the administrator was desysopped for cause, as that reflects the current situation (which is better explained at Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration_of_adminship). Worm^TT(talk)

Additional question from User:HalfGig

12. Bureaucrats and arbitrators have to make tough calls. I saw a couple debates that made me think of posting this question. The claim was made that admins, arbitrators, and others in power protect their own, making one sided decisions, and that new users and content creators are treated poorly on wikipedia. What is your response and what do you think can be done to rectify this? How do you feel you've handled such situations?

Answer: There is no official heirarchy on Wikipedia, yet people like to follow a heirarchy. Some people gravitate towards an admin heirarchy as that fits their skills and it is natural for some people to gravitate to a different heirarchy, one of which is the supposed "content creator" heirarchy. It's a fallacy that the heirarchies are at odds, it's just a different set of skills. I've known very skilled editors in both groups, and there is no massive war going on. On the other hand, many people are treated poorly on Wikipedia, new users, content creators and admins alike. I've spent the vast majority of my time on Wikipedia trying to change that. It will take a herculean effort by the entire community to change the poor treatment of editors though I do believe it is something that can happen over time. As for the idea of people protecting there own, I'm sure it does happen to an extent, but I don't see that it happens in general. For example, Arbcom often does desysop people - I've requested recall on admins myself a number of times. Worm^TT(talk) 10:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Kraxler

13. At this time there's a crat chat going on to evaluate the outcome of a controversial RfA. It seems that most crats are on vacation at this time of the year, and only one crat has answered the original post by another crat. It also seems that the chat will go on for quite a while. Can the community count on you (if promoted) to go directly to the chat and take part in the decision? (It's not required here to state how you would vote, but feel free to tell us if you wish.) Kraxler (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Given that the reason the RfA is controversial is an Arbcom decision, one I participated in, I think that it would be inappropriate for me to weigh in at that particular crat chat. Happily, Acalamari is hot on my heels and looking set to join the crat ranks, so hopefully he'll be there in time if no one else is. Worm^TT(talk)

Hi, sorry to butt in here, but regardless of what happens with my candidacy, I won't be participating over there, either; as I've given an opinion in all three of that candidate's RfAs, I do not consider myself neutral. Just wanted to clarify this now! :) Thanks! Acalamari 08:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense, better to know sooner rather than later. :) Worm^TT(talk) 09:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Obviously trustworthy enough and wants to use the tools. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
2. (Edit conflict for first support.) Worm That Turned is fully qualified for this role. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
3. Fully qualified candidate, and we've had delays after at least one recent RFA so an extra crat would be useful. ϢereSpielChequers 14:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
4. Clearly trustworthy and I believe he would be more than capable of performing the tasks fairly and effectively given my experiences with him.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
5. Support. Experienced and sensible. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
6. Support, but I did it before it was cool. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
7. Support Well-qualified candidate; time constraints are no problem, even for 'crats :-). Miniapolis 15:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
8. Support as per Collect's oppose !vote below. Most of those elements are exactly the reasons that would make him a good Bureaucrat ES&L 15:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
9. Support Of course. Renames can always use a few more eyes and it doesn't seem the process is imminently being transferred to stewards. benmoore 15:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
10. Support, obviously. He has done excellent work as an arbitrator, and I trust that he will bring the same care and attention to his use of the bureaucrat toolset. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
11. Support without reservation. In my experience, WTT is one of the most helpful, knowledgeable, and trustworthy users on this project.- MrX 15:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
12. I know this is a bit childish, but Strongest Support Ever. I think I recall asking Worm to run for cratship a while ago, and I'm happy that he finally decided to do so. He has the knowledge, the patience, the wiseness and thoughtfulness required for the job. — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 16:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
13. Support of course, but you're actually not quite boring enough and I dunno how you're gonna fit all those name changes, bot approvals, and hundreds of RfA closures in with all your work in another place ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
14. About time Worm -- Excellent candidate. Is a respected arbitrator, while also having created content too. Considering the low volume of RfBs these days, we could use a good admin as a bureaucrat too and Worm is cut out for the job. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 16:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
15. Support. Impressive contributions to the site, in multiple varied capacities. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
16. Support --Stfg (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
17. Support' reluctantly, not because I don't think WTT is qualified, but because as he has already noted, WTT is busy with many things and I'm not sure adding more responsibilities or demands on his time is necessarily a good idea. -- KTC (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
18. Support He's definitely well qualified for the role. Not sure if he'll have a lot of time to put into cratting, but granting him the tools certainly won't do any harm. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
19. Support No-brainer, considering the more significant hats he has already been trusted to wear. Widr (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
20. Support Heck yes! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
21. Support — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
22. Certainly. The time issue, which Worm That Turned openly disclosed in his self-nomination, is slightly concerning but the important thing is trust and I fully trust Worm That Turned. My observations of him have been more than positive and I think that he's a great admin with a strong track record and, thus, will be a great bureaucrat. Other than that small issue, I do not have any reservations at all and am very pleased to support. Acalamari 18:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
23. Support - is expounding really necessary? He's the total package ... Go Phightins! 18:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
24. Strong support  Roger Davies ^talk 18:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
25. Support, Your names Dave so I have to support! :) Joking aside Great candidate, Good luck :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
26. Support. Temperamentally well-suited for the job, even the boring part, although I don't know if Dave is in fact boring. My only reservation is the candidate's (time), but if he believes he can help out, I trust his judgment.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
27. Support though I have the same concerns as KTC. --Rschen7754 19:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
28. Suppport - I trust WTT's judgement when it comes to time constraints, so I can support this nomination as everything else I've seen from him tells me he's more than qualified for this position. TCN7JM 19:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
29. Support. Aside from the fact that fish like worms, there's an abundance of reasons why I support the candidate. If ever there were a case of having a track record upon which the community could evaluate a candidate, this is it. He has a track record of handling responsibility well, of understanding where community sentiment is at (important in closing RfAs), of being low-drama, and of being honest. As for the time availability thing, maybe too honest: it probably didn't even need to be admitted, and I do not see how not having him 'crat at all would be more useful that having him 'crat from time to time. And I don't see any conflict issues arising from also being on ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
30. Cloudchased (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
31. Obviously. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
32. Support I have had the benefit with working with Worm That Turned in the past and have to say that he's more then qualified for being a bureaucrat.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
33. Support - Trustworthy editor, getting that extra tools are key to a trustworthy user. Don't really mind about minor issues and business in life aren't important to an RfB. ///EuroCarGT 21:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
34. Support No concerns. --Randykitty (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
35. Support, I do not have problems with this nomination, fully qualified candidate.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
36. Support If he only gets a couple of name changes per week it would be a help. Anyway, if you want something doing, the busy people are the best to call on... Peridon (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
37. Support. Experienced, able, polite administrator. Time constraint should not be a big problem in the bureaucrat role. Some good contributions are better than none at all. The number of tasks are limited but an insufficient number of active bureaucrats seems to be causing some delays or low participation in, for example, crat chats. I can't see any real conflict of interest problem that can not be handled by recusal from an ArbCom case and I think that the few times this might occur also should not be a problem. Donner60 (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
38. Support No concerns. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
39. Support. I have no doubt whatsoever that Dave would do just fine in this role. 28bytes (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
40. Stephen 23:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
41. Support – I don't see any problems with this candidate. They have my support. United States Man (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
42. Sure. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
43. The epitome of a "no-brainer". Just don't let yourself get burned out with all that extra work! Kurtis ^(talk) 01:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
44. Support Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
45. Support but I also have the same concerns as KTC, above. I really hope these new tools don't get you burned out! - tucoxn\^talk 01:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
46. Support net positive. Dlohcierekim 01:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
47. Speedy speedy support (moved from oppose after further thinking). I originally opposed because of Dave's comments about time and the horrible timing for a RFB. But hell I always thought WTT was brilliant with his work in reforming RFA to a more friendlier environment and I had him (alongside with Kudpung and the now retired Dennis Brown) as the crat candidates who are the projects best hopes to change this terrible system. I hope he can dedicate more time with this process, especially once he leaves ArbCom. Secret ^account 03:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
48. Support I've seen him around and never had issue with his decision making process. No worries at all about the extra tools.Chuy1530 (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
49. Support – No concerns. It should be helpful for Arbcom to have at least one member who can do bureaucrat things at the direction of the committee. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
50. Support I like how he wants the proper balance between real life and Wikipedia. Everything that I've seen on Wikipedia has been spot on. Royalbroil 04:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
51. Andrevan@ 05:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
52. Support Yes. He has a good head on him, and the kind of temperament I would want and expect in a 'crat. ~Adjwilley (talk) 07:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
53. Support I am One of Many (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
54. Support No concerns. Mkdw^talk 08:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
55. Support per 28bytes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
56. Strong Support per the praise above. I'm super impressed with your work here, and even more so with your answers to the questions, especially mine. Personally, I think it was one of the most thorough answers to an RfA/RfB question I've seen. smithers - talk 09:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
57. Support - Absolutely BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
58. Support, definitely! Steven Zhang (talk) 10:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
59. Support per above. Graham87 11:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
60. Yes. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
61. Support. No-brainer. Dougweller (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
62. Support. No concerns. — sparklism ^hey! 13:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
63. Support. A highly reliable and conscientious editor, who has done good work as checkuser, oversighter, and administrator, and there is every reason to expect similar performance as a bureaucrat. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
64. Support Kraxler (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
65. Support – He has very good judgment from what I've seen. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
66. Strong Support I have seen him making controversial decisions that no other admin dared to, rather ignored to play safe. So certainly a yes, we need crat's like him. Soham 14:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
67. Support No issues. Deb (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
68. Support Friendly and transparent, does not increase drama god. :) →StaniStani  15:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
69. Automatically trustworthy and competent because he's an Arbitr.... wait, what the hell am I saying? Although in this particular case, he is trustworthy and competent, so OK. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
70. Ultra Strong Support Dave is easily the most boring Wikipedian I've ever met :D. Perfectly qualified to be a 'crat. --RexxS (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
71. Support I'm quite surprised he isn't already a 'crat yet. Epicgenius (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
72. Support, no concerns here. --Laser brain (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
73. Support Technical 13 (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
74. Support, of course. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
75. Support. I have complete faith that WTT is capable of prioritizing his workload and that he will bring the same level of commonsense and integrity to the 'crat role as he does as an editor, admin, and ArbCom member.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
76. Support See no reason not to. KonveyorBelt 18:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
77. Support - solid human being. GiantSnowman 18:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
78. Support, mostly per Widr and Tryptofish. - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
79. Faster privacy renames sound like a good thing, and I think we can trust WTT with whatever buttons he plans to use. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
80. I've had the privilege of interacting with Worm in multiple venues (including the 2011 RFA discussions) and he's always helpful, articulate and calm. His talk page archives are sprinkled with fulfilled requests for assistance and constructive interaction with others. His general conduct, including his answers to the questions here, leave a positive impression. His time limitations are of no concern since he, like all of us, is a volunteer and will help when he can (and that's all that really matters). A terrific editor who would be beneficial as a 'crat. I'm very happy to ecstatically support. Best of luck. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
81. Support. Well-rounded, deliberative (I'm translating the candidate's own "I'm boring"), perfect for the job. Bishonen | talk 21:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC).
82. Support - Good choice...Modernist (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
83. Support Obviously. And I hope you enjoy it more than you enjoyed ARBCOM. N^oformation ^Talk 21:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
84. Support. Gamaliel (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
85. Support per all of the above tentatative. Montanabw^(talk) 01:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

    I'm also having some concerns. This editor's ability to see the big picture and not jump to conclusions is a concern to me per recent actions at arbcom. Montanabw^(talk) 18:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

86. Support Your work is good, and you're well trusted within the community. Keep it up! Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
87. Support. Spencer^T♦C 02:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
88. Support The candidate is eminently qualified. I see the fact that he's also on ArbCom as a positive rather than a negative. As for his time being limited, whose isn't? If he has an hour or two now and then to devote to these particular tasks, then the encyclopedia will be the better for it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
89. Support – it's always good to have an oddity in the Wikipedia administration – someone with their feet (mostly) on the ground. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
90. Support - Very experienced, trustworthy and qualified. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
91. Emphatic support — I have complete faith in WWT, a solid contributor, who I owe so much to. All the very best, Dave! ——MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
92. Support. Has the trust of the community, in spades. Binksternet (talk) 07:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
93. Support no issue with granting the bit. Maybe more general discussion about acquiring privileges while holding powerful office and whether acquisition during that term should expire with the term (or just granted with the term) would be appropriate. Doesn't happen alot so mybe not even worth discussion outside case by case basis. --DHeyward (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
94. Support Perhaps this isn't the best criterion from which to judge, but I thought WTT gave good answers. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
95. Support WTT is a trustworthy Wikipedian who can handle things right. Despite being an ArbCom member and a sysop, he can pretty well make decisions based on his answers and contributions. If someone asks me ^{[Quoted from P!nk's song]} "Just give me a reason to oppose WTT", I'd answer "I find no reason to oppose." I think he'll be a much-needed crat that the community will accept. Japanese Rail Fan (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
96. Support Great temperament, trusted admin, well-qualified. I'm not concerned about perceived balancing issues - the candidate has excellent judgment and guidance from policy. Obvious net positive. -- Scray (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
97. Support I've some worries about time and other issues related to being a sitting Arb. But I certainly trust and respect the user, so easy support. Hobit (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
98. Support based on past administrative actions, trustworthy. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
99. Support he makes a good admin and there is no question that he will make a good crat.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
100. Support Why not? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
101. Support Long history of exemplary service to the encyclopedia expanded a bit more in the future. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 16:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
102. Absolutely. T. Canens (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
103. Support per all above. Good candidate.  ● Thane — formerly Guðsþegn  16:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
104. Support--MONGO 19:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
105. Why not. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
106. Support. Candidate is a highly trusted user, I am happy to support this nom. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
107. Support. I hold WTT in high regard and value his commitment to the project. In my opinion, he is fully qualified to serve in this role. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 20:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
108. Support abso-frickin'-lutely. Has had my full confidence for a long, long time. Yunshui 雲‍水 22:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
109. Support I see no issues with this request.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
110. Support.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
111. Support. Long overdue. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 03:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
112. Support One of our most trusted editors. No reason not to support. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
113. Support Trusted cyrfaw (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
114. Support. The Worm That Turned into a 'crat. ;) -- œ^™ 11:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
115. If we're willing to entrust someone with the admin tools, then we trust them. They really can't wreak much worse havoc with the additional crat tools; as appointments go, this really isn't a big deal. Happy to give the Worm another feather in his cap.—S Marshall T/C 11:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
116. Support. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 16:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
117. Support. Acer (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
118. Support -Highly trusted user. I believe Worm That Turned has the ability and judgement to work in a Bureaucrat's role as it can be seen from their good record and past administrative experience. Everyone here is a volunteer anyway. Clearly a net positive to the project. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
119. Support. Since I first became aware of Worm That Turned, I have consistently seen him as a fair-minded user with a strong work ethic and a great willingness to help. He has consistently performed admirably in the positions of trust that he has been granted, including adminship and ArbCom. In the beginning I probably mistook his somewhat lenient streak as naïvity, but I have since seen that he is rigorous in analyzing the situation and that his comments are carefully and eloquently worded. All these are strong qualities that should serve him well in the role as a bureaucrat. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
120. Support keep calm and carry on. ;) Alex ^{discussion ★} 21:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
121. Support One of the most level-headed users I know. Dan653 (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
122. Support, exactly the type of person I would want if a tough call on a close RfA were needed. Working with WTT thus far, I've been very impressed with him. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
123. Support Wha took you so long ;) Tazerdadog (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
124. Support Sorry I didn't see this sooner, and don't really have time for a protracted "why", but I do support this. (aka User:Ched) — ChedZILLA 06:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

     I'll be honest ... I'm having some second thoughts ~ — ChedZILLA

125. Support - Excellent candidate. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 08:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
126. Support – the question is whether WTT should be trusted with these extra tools. I do not always agree with him, but I don't see him running amok, being unable to sensibly judge consensus in an RfA, or being unable to act appropriately over a re-name, so my answer is an easy "yes". We have the unusual situation of having seen his work on ArbCom so the insight into his decision-making is much greater than is typical for a "simple" admin RfB. EdChem (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
127. Support: A strong candidate. - Ret.Prof (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
128. Support Like and +1 this candidate. One of the hard working editors and admin of the community who deserves to have the RFB approved. Ethically ^(Yours)`
129. Support Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
130. Support Good administrator, I have no issues with their current or past works nor do I think they will misuse or abuse the tools in anyway and will use them for the benefit of the project. John F. Lewis (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
131. Support. Like my colleague John F. Lewis immediately above me, I am confident that the Worm has been a good administrator and will make a good crat. In my position as a Junior Wrangler at the WP:Teahouse, I have also examined the Opposes. First, if I had any suspicion that Worm was weak on BLP, he would have known about my opinions (in a big way) long before now. I think this is a misunderstanding or a mis-reading. Second, I do not see a problem with an arb also being a crat, especially if the objection is based upon an assertion that arbs should have crat powers. Third, to ruthlessly paraphrase Karl Marx on education versus child employment, "a change is as good as a rest". Fourth, Godwin's law applies. Fifth, this was addressed adequately at the talk page of the arbitration case in question, by a wiser editor than I. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
132. Support buffbills7701 02:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
133. I hope someday we stop telling valuable volunteers that they have "too many hats". It's a website. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
134. Support, absolutely. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
135. Support. Absolutely. A fine fellow, excellent admin and arbitrator. Malke 2010 (talk) 06:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
136. Support. Alan ^(talk) 17:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
137. Support Arb ,well versed in policy and one of the most respected users in the Project.Same person has been arbitrator and a bureaucrat with no problems and feel the user the Project only will gain with the user becoming a crat . On a sidenote User:Wizardman,User:Hersfold,User:Rlevse amongst others became crats first then became Arb .The only difference here user WTT a sitting Arb is running to be a crat not the other way round. See no issues here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

     Actually, I was an arb (09-10) long before I became a crat (13), so I'd be on the other side of that equation. Wizardman 20:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

     Sorry did not phrase it correctly.Just wanted to mention you (in March 2013) did not run for cratship as a Sitting arb and recently a sitting arb has not run for cratship.Thank you for pointing it out.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

138. Support - I was introduced to Worm during the Bacon WikiCup, and since then, I've only seen good qualities in their editing and judgement. Excellent answers to questions so far; no doubt about a support. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
139. Support Deserves the wrench. The mop's getting too old. --Ankit Maity ^{«T § C»}_{«Review Me»} 07:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
140. Support no issues with WTT being a crat. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
141. Support - I have no concerns. AlexiusHoratius 15:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
142. Support. While I cannot fathom why a sitting Arb would want also to be a crat, I've found WTT to be a particularly level-headed, trustworthy sysop and have no reason to think he wouldn't manifest the same qualities in this role. Rivertorch (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
143. Support Trustworthy editor, will make good use of the tools. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
144. Support Another "No brainer" Mlpearc (open channel) 18:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
145. Support, trustworthy, level-headed, will do fine. Nsk92 (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
146. I've waited a while to cast my vote here because I wanted to see how the RfB would pan out. It seems to be going reasonably, so I'll comment now. The opposes seem to be mainly based on objections to having WTT as an Arb and crat simultaneously. I don't see how holding both positions will affect anything, and by this time next year the ArbCom position will have expired (although he may or may not have been reelected). He's just simply great as an editor, even if the timing here is slightly poor because of recent inactivity. Phenomenal as an adopter - kept me here. Quirky content topics - stargazy pie is one of his. He's generally boring, which is a good thing for someone doing admin work. He's not controversial, he's not going to get caught up in any paid editing scandal. A simple net positive, with nothing that can go wrong. I say let him have it. Rcsprinter (barney) @ 23:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
147. Support I trust David's judgement and think he would do fine as a 'crat. Part of that judgment involves knowing when to recuse, should his Arbcom and 'crat responsibilities ever conflict. I also agree with the sentiment that we shouldn't discourage trustworthy users from taking on additional responsibilities. Mike V • Talk 02:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
148. The opposes convinced me to support. Having a crat and arb as one person is a non-issue. Wizardman 05:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
149. Support - I trust WTT's judgment from the times I've observed his involvement in various issues around this project. He is certainly capable of performing the work, and I believe he'll do it well. I'm also satisfied with his answers above. -- Atama頭 06:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

     Support - Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Duplicate of Support 125 indented. Amalthea 11:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

150. Strong support Absolutely no reason to think they'll misuse the extra tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Collect (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC) Having noted his work as an Arb, his weakness in supporting WP:BLP, and his remarkable lack of concentration at a number of core Wikipedia areas other than WP-space and userspace, I fear I must oppose.

   I do not dispute or object to your !vote, I just want to ask for some details and diffs (especially about "is weakness in supporting WP:BLP") regarding your concerns for those of us who may be otherwise unaware of them. Gamaliel (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

   This page is not the place for extensive threaded discussions, but in 2012 I asked all ArbCom candidates for views including views on BLPs, and I found his answer to not meet reasonable standards IMO. 'Biographical articles are always popular articles to work on. ..." I found to be a very shallow view of what is one of the most critical issues on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

   Agreed. I didn't want to start a discussion, you just raised some serious concerns that I wanted to know more about. Thanks for your answer. Gamaliel (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

2. I think he is a good candidate and would normally support. However, being a member of the Arbcom could potentially put him in the position to have to recuse on cases if he was the one that performed the bureau function on the member. Besides a member of the Arbcom the access to perform these functions should be automatic anyway. Kumioko (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

   Who's better off? You're the one who's saying that arbitrators should gain 'crat tools. I don't think Worm is running for 'cratship because he needs it for Arbcom things; I think he's running to be able to do 'crat things when he's not doing Arbcom things. I'm not sure the two are related. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

   So what happens when he promotes an admin and then that admin is brought before Arbcom or becomes the recipient of a sanction? He would have to recuse. I admit that with the current environment the likelihood of even an abusive admin being brought before the committee is small, but this is a realistic possibility. So the only time WTT would likely use the tools is based on an Arbcom determination which I think they should already have the ability to implement. No one has the power to tell the Arbcom no, so there is no point in not giving them access to the tools for the performance of their duties. Just as they are free to use the other tools as the need arises outside Arb functions, there is no reason why they shouldn't also be able to use them. Anyway, this whole argument is irrelevant because only 2 have opposed and over 23 have supported so far. My own oppose is based on the fact that they should already have access and not because I don't trust WTT so go ahead and give him the tools. I don't really care but this whole request is just a pointless waste of the communities tie because the Arbs should have it anyway. They have every other tool and pretty much do whatever they want anyway no reason this should be different. Kumioko (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

   So the only time WTT would likely use the tools is based on an Arbcom determination...er, we do have these things called WP:CHU/S and WP:CHU/U...and why is it a particular problem if Worm has to recuse, for whatever reason? By that logic, we would have to disallow arbitrators from doing anything else on the encyclopedia because they might have to recuse against someone at some point. I don't see how 'cratship is any different from anything else in that respect. I mean, you're more than welcome to oppose for whatever reason you want, no skin off my back; I'm not trying to badger you into changing your !vote or anything. I just trying to understand what you're saying, and I'm not succeeding. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

   No, your just exaggerating what I am saying to try and discredit my point. I have made my vote and explained why. I'm not going to be bullied into changing it because others don't agree...especially when it isn't going to make any difference to the outcome and when no one cares what I say anyway. Kumioko (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

   That makes absolutely no sense at all as a reason for opposing. "Being a member of the Arbcom could potentially put him in the position to have to recuse on cases" just means that he may sometimes have to recuse - where on earth is the problem? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

   Thats fine if it doesn't make sense to you. As I said, if Arbcom has the ability to remove the tools from an admin (which they rarely do anyway even in cases of obvious or major abuse) or do other tasks that require the tools then they should already have the tools. Its pointless for them to have to run to the Bureaus just because. Arbcom already has every other tool anyway, just give them these tools as well. Then they'll have the whole set but I'm still not going to change my oppose because a couple editors don't agree with me and want to badger me into changing my vote. Just ignore my vote if you want, everyone ignores my comments anyway since I' just an untrustworthy editor with no clue. Kumioko (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

   This may not help, Kumioko, but as far as I remember, ArbCom members have never performed desysopping. In the early days, they always made a request for a meta:Steward to do the actual removal of the sysop flag. More recently, that function has been granted to bureaucrats on en-wp, so it is usually kept within the project now. I don't believe that the functions of an arbitrator and a bureaucrat actually overlap, but I respect your right to disagree with me on that. --RexxS (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

   Your right, back in the old days the stewards did it and now the Bureaucrats can. This is also one of the few times Arbcom hasn't had at least one Steward or Bureaucrat on the team too. This really isn't opposing Dave, I like dave, and I know this oppose isn't going to mean anything, in the end he'll get the tools and that will be that. This is basically an oppose because the Arb's should have access to the tools they need to do their job. That is a problem throughout Wikipedia and why its starting to show signs of collapse, people don't have access to things they need to do the job and there aren't enough people willing to stand up and try to fix that problem. Those of us that do are ostracized. Arbcom has the mandate to desysop admins so they should have the ability to perform the action. Not waste the communities time with requests for a tool they should already have as part of their mandate. As a side note I'm also an oddball in thinking that admins should police the editors, bureau's should police the admins (along with the things they already do) and Arbcom should deal with the things they deal with. WE don't have anyone that deals with the admins an that is why admin abuse is so rampant. Kumioko (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

   Admins are caretakers, not police. (But I do see your point, a bit.) Rcsprinter (post) @ 00:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

   Oppose, redundantly, per KTC support comment. I can't fully comprehend why the candidate is running for bureaucratship when he admits that he is currently busy in real life and "majority of his time" is dedicated to his role at ArbCom. Seems to be terrible timing here. Secret ^account 20:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

   Moved to Speedy Support Secret ^account 03:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

3. I feel foolish doing so, but based on the self-revealed time issue, i feel that Oppose is the camp i fall into. Normally, in line with a vast number of the supports, i would be happy to see this move for WTT, but i can't see how, with real life being more important than WP (is that close to heresy?) and arbitration stuff taking up much/most of his WP time, this is not a hat request. I understand the value of a bureaucrat as an arb and i understand the desire to help; i'm just not sure it's practical at this point. Clearly, this request is going to pass, so i'll just reiterate that under other circumstances i'd enthusiastically support. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 07:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

   Right, but ArbCom terms end eventually...Bureaucrat roles do not, so this is not a valid argument. Nothing stops WTT from spending 12 months learning Buro roles, acting only here and there, discussing regularly, but then committing himself full-time to those roles when his Arb term ends. He's a grown man; don't time-manage on his behalf ES&L 09:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

   Hmm, i think that the Dangerous One and i will have to agree to disagree; obviously, i think it's a valid argument, else i wouldn't have used it: WTT brought up the time issue, not i; i wouldn't presume to manage his time. I had noticed, though, a few days back, that it'd been so long since i'd seen his signature on any pages i watch that i actually wondered if he'd retired. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 12:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

4. Oppose Refusal to take personal responsibility for one's actions is not what I want to see in a bureaucrat. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

   That's an odd statement. I don't see anywhere that WTT has "refused to take personal responsibility" for anything. That's a rather bold attack, unless the diffs/links are provided. Maybe you're misreading a response that WTT made somewhere? ES&L 12:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

   Per the response to Question 10. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

   I think the response is somewhat interesting although I don't read it as a refusal to take responsibility for ones actions. He is right, though, that there does exist a sort of mass-scale 'jury nullification' where even if Arbcom were to rule something there still has to be someone to carry it out. All it takes is one bureaucrat to do that, and they ask the entire group, so it isn't something I see happening really. If you disagree with that position and think they should have an individual responsibility to perform whatever action Arbcom requests then that's an argument you can make, but my understanding is that his answer reflects how it works now, and I can't fault him for that.Chuy1530 (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

   Well, even if every single 'crat decided to not act on a request, Arbcom could still ask a steward, and I guarantee that the stewards won't pocket-veto. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

   Obviously an improbable scenario, one which I would think would call for a political rather than a technical solution. The point was about about taking responsibility for one's actions. Other editors wondered if WTT would "recuse on cases if he was the one that performed the bureau function". And the answer was that "the decision and the responsibility for the decision has been made elsewhere". (Which us Army types call the Nuremberg defence.) But as far as I am concerned, a bureaucrat does have discretion, and therefore does have personal responsibility. And people who fear that WTT may not be able to distinguish between his role as Arb and that of bureaucrat should not be encouraged by his answers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

   The answer to question 10 in no way says that WTT refuses to take responsibility for his personal actions. It cannot be parsed at all to even suggest that ES&L 20:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

   Cannot eh? Looks like I've done the impossible before breakfast once again. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

   Pehaps you should spend time more time eating meals and less time asking "improbable" questions and misinterpreting the responses. As strange as Wikipedia's governance is in some respects, fortunately, it rarely follows a military model.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

   Uh, guys? I know my hands aren't particularly clean in this respect, but maybe we could lay off Hawkeye? As I said above, people are free to oppose for whatever reason they want. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

   I agree that we should lay off Hawkeye. I have considered Hawkeye's comments and disagree. The candidate's record has shown him to be a strong Admin. who is more than willing to take responsibility for his actions. Therefore I am going to support him. - Ret.Prof (talk) 10:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

5. Oppose Not satisfied with his exercise of judgment against an editor who has not been proven to have violated any policies in a recent ArbCom case, so I cannot support.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

   Oh come on. Don't bring the Kafziel drama in here. KonveyorBelt 17:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

6. Oppose I'm also concerned with the response to question 10, not least as it's not internally consistent. WTT is correct in noting that bureaucrats can decline to take any actions (as they are, of course, volunteers), but his statement that they should always do as they're told by ArbCom is concerning. When there was a strong community reaction against a proposal to desysop Gnangarra in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth which was close to gaining majority support by the Arbitrators a couple of bureaucrats made a powerful contribution to the discussion by stating that they would not enact this sanction as they considered it too harsh, and urged the Committee to reconsider. This was the correct thing to have done IMO and presumably contributed to several members of ArbCom deciding to change their votes. As far as I'm aware, such interventions are (rightfully) very rare, so to suggest that they're some kind of "super vote" seems to miss the point of the moral force which is associated with taking them. It's concerning to me that, based on the answer to this question, WTT does not support bureaucrats acting as a check against an unwise ArbCom decision in this way and so I cannot support their nomination. Nick-D (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

   Nick, thank you for the comments, I do appreciate them, along on with all the oppose votes - standing up in front of certain badgering is not easy. On the question, I was thinking a number of things, firstly what "a crat" can do, not what "the crats" could do. The super vote comment was meant to point towards the possibility of crat discussion, but perhaps I should have been more clear there. My other thought was from an Arbcom perspective - there is a lot of private information and off-wiki harassment that we see, and I was specifically thinking of the situation where a popular admin needs to be desysopped for completely quiet reasons. A single crat should not be standing in the way of that, nor, really a group of crats as they have not seen the full picture. Thinking further though, we have a number of crat functionaries and they may be the solution to that particular problem. In any case, thank you for your well reason comments, they've certainly got me thinking. Worm^TT(talk) 07:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

7. Oppose as WTT is an Arbcom member, further centralisation of power is undesirable.-gadfium 03:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
8. Oppose per Nick-D, gadfium and others, as I also prefer separation of roles. It isnt hard to find an identified WP:crat (many crats are also WP:functionaries), and definitely worth passing those types of problems over to a crat whose focus is on the crat tools and responsibilities - they have the time to review and defend their actions. If arbcom cant trust any 'crat with the details required, it should probably be handed over to WMF to handle as it is beyond what the community can deal with. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
9. Oppose per John Vdb and others above. Nothing against Worm, but there is a governance issue. Ceoil (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
10. Oppose per separation of powers. If there's a backlog in user renaming, a better solution is identifying existing admins who don't suck and getting them to run. NE Ent 23:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
11. Oppose - While certainly not the worst of a less-than-stellar ArbCom which was long on secrecy and short on common sense, WTT was part of it. That's a minus. While he is generally a sensible voice in Wikipedia's political field, he is part of it. That is also a minus. Bureaucrats need to be dull as dirt so that there is no question of Wikipolitics™ coming into play if they are ever in the position of making a tough call, such as for example, closing a heated RfA for a controversial candidate in a borderline situation. That does happen once in a while, you know. A good guy but the wrong guy for this. Carrite (talk) 06:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
12. Oppose - "It's a fallacy that the heirarchies are at odds, it's just a different set of skills." is a killer for me and shows something I'd suspected from the rest of the comments, that WTT doesn't see the true depth of a situation, only part of an issue. I do agree changing the way wikipedia is will be herculean, but I'm not sure it can happen as it's asking to change human nature. I don't know much about Arbcom history, but I think Carrite makes very valid points, that WTT is usually quite sensible, but not an optimal choice for this position. HalfGig talk 11:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
13. Oppose - Pure separation of powers issue. Despite how difficult a goal, I would like to see Wikipedia develop some political standards along this line, and this seems like one of the most obvious ones. Arbcom members should not be bureaucrats. Shadowjams (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

    Would it not therefore make more sense to get a consensus for a policy change, based on banning Arbcom members from being Bureaucrats?  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

    Do you want a constitution like the U.S., where rules are specifically outlined, and everything outside of those constructions is fair game, or do you want a system like the British version, where comity and tradition make precedent. As far as I can tell, in my 4+ years here, we're a hybrid of a lot of government systems, and so social convention like this is as much law, in fact more law, than is any bullet point hyphenated policy. Your opposition (which is totally fair... I have no animosity towards your opposing) only serves to demonstrate my point. I want [and I'm explicit about it but this is a clear trend] to create a political culture on wikipedia that understands and values these sorts of separation of powers. So your point is exactly accurate, and my response is precisely to it. Shadowjams (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

14. Oppose Emphatically not per Nick-D, as I believe bureaucrats should be almost entirely a technical role, but I don't think we're so short of bureaucrats that we can't afford having separate people hold bureaucrat and arbitrator positions. wctaiwan (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

    We're terribly short of bureaucrats, actually ES&L 00:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

15. Oppose per wctaiwan. Legoktm (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

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

1. Neutral WTT needs another hat slightly less than we need another 'Crat. No need to oppose, no need to support. No need to comment at all, save I don't care for the badgering in the oppose section. If someone has got valid concerns they are entitled to express them and should not be accused of time managing a candidate when such a claim is palpably wrong. The oppose is simply stating the facts objectively as they see them and is honest enough to place them in an oppose !vote rather than a disguised, sycophantic support !vote. Leaky Caldron 12:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.