Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Worm That Turned

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

Worm That Turned

Final (121/3/2); Closed as successful by –xeno^talk at 12:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Worm That Turned (talk · contribs) – This is probably one of the most difficult things I've ever done on Wikipedia, I'm not great at blowing my own trumpet and I've spent the last few months discussing the perils of RfA at WP:RfA reform 2011. However, I feel the time is right to put myself forward, and run the gauntlet. Describing myself as a Wikipedian is difficult; I try to work in as many areas as I can, focussing on one at a time to see if it catches my attention. I've been editing for a few years, with a break while I was self-employed, and I started editing with gusto this time last year. I have 7 Good articles to my name, along with 13 DYKs, even winning last year's Bacon wikicup. More recently my time has been spent helping new editors. I run an adoption school, where editors who are looking for a structured explanation of the Wikipedia basics get just that. I'm very proud of my work there, with many graduating students who have shown significant improvement, and regular requests to be adopted.

I've spent time helping out on IRC helpdesk and try to answer requests at editor assistance when I've got time. I have also spent time as an ambassador and a guide - along with my most recent role in OTRS. Overall, I'd consider myself a calm, helpful and patient editor who has a clue, and on that note, I submit myself for your review. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2011 (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. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: The reason I've decided to run for adminship is that I've noticed I keep skipping over tickets in the OTRS queue which I cannot deal with due to not being an administrator. They're no more urgent than others, but the "bit" would be helpful. Otherwise, I would happily chip in with the admin backlog, though I would certainly tackle areas I am less familiar with tentatively.

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

A: Well, I'm intently proud of all my contributions, but especially my first real article, Doom Bar. I will get it to featured status, and even took a trip to Daymer Bay a couple of weeks ago to take photos of it. My other good articles are food and drink related, Clotted Cream, Stargazy Pie, Squab pie, Pasty, Bacon ice cream and BLT, and I feel all 7 are well written and on interesting topics. I've done cleanup work, reducing the number of self-contradictory articles from around 400 to about 80 (though it's crept back up) and other cruft removal from articles. But the contributions I'm most proud of is helping people, be it BLPs like Marcus Clarke, adopting new editors, mentoring more experienced but "troubled" editors or just answering requests for help.

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: Well, I don't really get stressed at all, least of all over Wikipedia - it's just not worth it. Having said that, I have had certain incidents affect me. One of my first adoptees decided to go on a vandalism spree, which he followed up with a sock puppet spree doing Willy on Wheels vandalism, with my name. My own fault, per WP:BEANS, though he did get bored. I did my best to ignore the whole thing, but my adoptees at the time took quite the brunt of his insults, which did upset me. Otherwise, I interact with editors, try to get along with them all. Sometimes I rub people up the wrong way, but I generally seem to get on all right with people as I'm very good at seeing their point of view.

Additional question from Kiefer.Wolfowitz

4. Would you comment on my edits to your (and 23:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC) others') article, Blue Ribbon Bacon Festival, which appeared on the main page of Wikipedia as a DYK, attracting 2.7 thousand visits. You started this article and wrote most of it, and it was the first (and so far only) article of yours that I have examined.

Your article incorrectly wrote 800 rather than 600, which was correctly stated in the DYK, I'll mention (as a reminder to us all to double-check DYK facts!). :-) More imporantly, The Des Moines Register has a search facility going back years, and I cannot find this cited article:

• "Bacon lovers snap up 1,300 festival tickets". Des Moines Register. 22 January 2011. Retrieved 31 January 2011.
• Harleegirl, a blogger, gives an identical reference, however.
• Bacon Festival has a story that conceivably could be the source for the DMR article and the blogger, (if the DMR archives have a problem).

We all need to improve our writing, so don't worry about copy editing! :-) Besides the DMR reference, I am also concerned about providing de-facto advertising for a commercial event and with the use of sources (the cookbook, which I removed, and the Fastcompany blurb). Thanks! Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A: I've been watching your improvements to the article Kiefer and I thank you for your hard work. Dealing with your points, the last time I edited the article I left it in this state, with the correct number of visitors - 600. At the time, the Des Moines Register did have the article in question, and I'm a little annoyed that they've removed it from their site and have opted out of Wayback machine. However, at least three other sites link back to the story, along with the blog you found, so I believe it's a DMR problem. This does still leave us with the issue of a dead link, but I am certain that if I put DMR, it would have appeared in DMR.

I'm not certain where the "passion for all things bacon" blurb came from. I don't see it in the cited source either, but I'm sure I wouldn't have included it as a quote for no reason. Either way, you're certainly right to take it out. I suppose your final point is regarding promotion. I freely admit that this is a weakness of mine, I search for as many sources as I can find, and then write the article based on those sources. My work at bacon jam suffered similarly regarding Skillet Street Food. Since I realised I had this weakness, I've been very wary of writing promotionally, and when I re-wrote the article on Marcus Clarke (puppeteer), I asked for review both at the talk page and at requests for feedback. With hindsight, I should have gone back and worked on the Blue Ribband Bacon Festival article further but I became distracted with other bits.

I hope this answers your questions, and I also hope you find time to have a look at my other work. Worm^TT · (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Snottywong

5. In your answer to question 1, you indicate that you intend to help with the admin backlog, and that you would be more careful around areas with which you are less familiar. Could you list some specific admin areas that you feel you could jump right into and hit the ground running, as well as some specific admin areas where you would initially be more tentative? Are there any specific areas (besides OTRS) in which you intend to act in an admin capacity?

A: I freely admit that I haven't worked that much in admin areas, otherwise I'd have come asking for the mop before now. As such, I don't believe there is any area I could jump right into without some further investigation, but I've done a fair amount of vandal fighting in the past, so would feel relatively confident on AIV. I'm unlikely to do much there though as it moves so quickly and I would get annoyed with the constant edit conflicts! I should also be able to cope with non-controversial CSDs, things like U1 or A3. At the other end of the scale, I would require a lot of work to get my head around WP:UAA, where I think I've made 2 edits, both of them below a standard I'd expect of myself. In between sits XfD, I'm confident I could judge consensus, but I do think it would require a bit more work before I look at contentious discussions.

As for what I'd actually do (besides OTRS), in the short term, very little. However, I do intend to be around at Wikipedia for the long haul, so I am unlikely to rule any areas out before looking at them. I am well aware of my limits though, I'm not the sort of person to run amok with a mop.

Additional question from TCO

6. Hey WTT, please name the article to which you added the most referenced content in the second half of 2010. (It may not be your show pony, but pick the one with the most add in that period.) Please also give a para or two describing the work done (types of refs, citations, key issues, relation to the article, etc.) It's not a trick question, but I'm interested in how you summarize something in talk, here, as well as looking at the actual contribution. P.s. Good luck and hang tough.

A: There were two articles that I worked hard on in that time period, bringing Doom Bar and Clotted cream up to good status. It's fairly close on both, adding about 14k bytes and 25 refs on each. So, I'll choose Clotted cream, because I was lucky enough to have the collaboration of User:Smalljim when he saw what I was doing. Clotted cream (the 6th 14th most viewed Cornish article) looked like this when I found it.

I spent time reading everything I could about the substance, trawling the Google news, books and scholar archives, along with some books I have on food at home, and put down everything that I though might be useful on my to do page, also making notes offline on how I thought the layout might look. I split the article out, and expanded each section based on what I'd learnt from my research. Focusing on the factual information that I could confirm, I wrote about how it was made, why it was made, and its significance. I then went on to add more information about its history and the mention of it in popular culture. Eventually, I had the article looking like this, a vast improvement. At this point, Smalljim copyedited, added some very helpful points, including some extra images and a bit of poetry. It didn't take long before the article was ready for GAR.

So that's the way I work. I choose a topic, research it, make note of my research and then have a flurry of editing. At the moment, I've got my eye on a few topics, they're in my To Do page, and I'm sure I'll be able to get round to them... sure I'm sure.

Additional question from ResidentAnthropologist

7. Where does you user name come from? Its a very interesting one and I cant help but feel its either references to something or an interesting story behind it.

A I wish I had a more interesting answer for you. Back in 1998, I wanted a free email address from hotmail, mainly so I could converse with members of the opposite sex without my parents seeing. I wanted something memorable (specifically without a number), and I think a teacher had shouted "you miserable little worm" at another student that morning. Anyway, conversation created "Worm That Turned". I still have that hotmail email address to this day, along with quite a few other Worm That Turned usernames littered around the internet.

So, in case you were wondering, it's nothing to do with The Worm That Turned, nor Henry VI, part 3. Worm^TT · (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Kiefer.Wolfowitz

8. Should the article Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange name the two complainants (women alleging unlawful sexual behavior)?

There has been recent discussion at WP:BLPN#Talk:CounterPunch#Moving_on, Talk:Julian Assange#Assenge's Accusers, and User Talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#Publishing_the_names_of_rape_victims.

Hint: User:newyorkbrad discussed WP:BLP during an invited 2009 lecture (also here), which I recommend to all.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A: My opinion? Absolutely not, for a number of reasons. Focussing on "Miss A", per WP:BLPNAME, I am not convinced that the name has been "widely" disseminated - for example, on the BBC News site, her name returns no hits. I'm relatively confident that she has not approached the press for interview (besides "anonymously"). Furthermore, I'm not sure what the names add to the article. We're not a tabloid, I disapprove of titillating facts in almost all forms, so they certainly shouldn't be given undue weight. We have an essay regarding not doing harm, and while it was rejected in favour of NPOV, that doesn't mean we should flaunt it. In fact, I would go so far as to say that we should follow it except when it is directly disagreeing with NPOV - ethically we should not be naming victims when their name is not an essential part of the case.

I can see there is an argument that this is censorship, but I don't see respecting privacy as censorship. It might be that I am affected by my nationality, but I do respect the privacy of all people, especially vulnerable people.

Your answer provided a concise and careful explanation of relevant portions of WP:BLP. Your comments carefully distinguished between WP policy, an WP essay (that did not become a policy), and your own thoughts. You should be an excellent administrator, as you have been an excellent editor.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Salvio giuliano

9. What is your opinion of WP:NLT and, as an admin, how would you enforce it?

A: Well, from what I've seen, the people who make legal threats at wikipedia generally don't understand Wikipedia's way of working. It's a massive amount of information to disseminate, and so if there's something important to you that's being threatened, then it is natural to want to protect it as fast as you can, not wade through 1000s of pages of text to find out how. In real life, our main point of protection is the court system, so it's understandable that people will automatically think to go there. In fact, I would have no problem with a legal battle being fought over a wikipedia article (though I hope it never needs to get that far), but any such battle must be kept off wiki. So, the concept of WP:NLT is very sound to me. It protects Wikipedia by ensuring a collaborative working environment, stopping any chilling effect.

It forces the editor who made the threat to talk to someone who is more qualified to help them - perhaps a helpful admin, or someone from OTRS, who can calm them down, explain what is happening and why. With a good explanation (effectively good customer service), I think many people who make legal threats will start to understand the process, and hopefully can actively participate in it. It even protects other editors (who are not lawyers) from saying something stupid that my actually count against them if there were a legal case.

Since the primary purpose of a block is protection and the no legal threats policy is in itself about protection, an instant indefinite block is the obvious solution. It's easy to apply, and easy to remove if the blocked editor removes the legal threat - it is important to be clear that the editor is not being "punished" for making the legal threat, but rather that they may not edit whilst there is an ongoing legal dispute.

Additional question from Puffin

10.If a user was constantly in violation of WP:PUFF, what would you do? How would you explain this to users in violation of it?

A:Now, this is an interesting question, since WP:PUFF is an essay and also as it comes back to the promotional issues I spoke about in question 4. Assuming the editor hasn't violated or is at least borderline on the relevant policy (WP:NPOV), this question becomes "What do you do if an editor is in constant violation of an essay". The only sensible thing to do is to talk to the editor. Explain why their work is a problem, why a lack of objectivity can lead to NPOV violations. Giving examples would help. It might even be a good idea to collaborate with them on an article, getting help from the relevant Wikiproject if you don't have the experience yourself. If on the other hand they have gone beyond the violation of the essay to violating NPOV, I'd follow the same steps, but with a more firm tone, backed up with a warning. Warning goes unheeded, then a block would follow - but I honestly don't see this happening. I'm certain the editor was only trying to improve the encyclopedia, and a well written warning should do the job well.

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.

---

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

Discussion

• Stats on talk Ryan Vesey (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Seems like a thoroughly decent tenured editor who will wield the tools with caution if perhaps not frequency. Article work impresses and your talk page archive is littered with requests for help (often through your mentoring programme but also from outher sources) which indicates to me someone who has respect and is trustworthy and cluefull. Pedro :  Chat  10:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
2. Strong support - Ummm...yeah. (I can provide a better rationale if asked, but why bother wasting the time on a probable WP:100 unopposed?) Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
3. Support—I've seen you around and always been impressed with your calm and level-headed way of dealing with problems (case in point...) so good luck! ╟─TreasuryTag►Subsyndic General─╢ 10:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
4. Support - See no reason not to issue a mop Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 10:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
5. Support No problems here. Peridon (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
6. Support so far logs and other wiki and block log look OK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
7. Support I could not support an editor more emphatically than I can for Worm That Turned. He has been a productive editor for over 3 years now, with a majority of his edits coming in the past year. His work with his adoption school has been excellent and it proves that he has a clear understanding of policy. He is one of the most knowledgeable editors I have met in administrative areas such as copyright issues and speedy deletion criteria. The only thing I fear is that if you give Worm the mop, he might clear all of the backlogs and everyone will be moping around with nothing to do. Ryan Vesey (talk) 13:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
8. Support - If there's a reason this candidate shouldn't have the mop, I haven't spotted it. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
9. Strong Support - Experienced editor with a very good attitude. I believe would make an excellent admin. JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
10. Strong Support Absolutely no reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
11. Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
12. Support Worm is my adopter. I've looked at the first adoption page, and even though it's only the first, I find it very comprehensive. Worm is friendly, and also cooperated with me very well. :) I think Worm will make a great admin! Good luck! Hurricanefan25 (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
13. Support. You'll do just fine. -- œ^™ 14:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
14. Support. Worm is a great editor, who has helped me out of numerous struggles in the past. With the little help of some admin tools, this editor will only get better. His adoption programme is absolutely great, and the articles he has written are good too. In fact, I thought Worm was already an admin when I first came in touch with him - he deserves this. Rcsprinter (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
15. Seems like a particularly humble and pleasant guy who's got the experience and a need for the tools. ceranthor 15:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
16. Weak support. The candidate has no need for the tools, but is obviously trusted anyways. Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
17. Support - No reason not to. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
18. Support. A solid contributor who can be trusted with admin tools. I'm particularly pleased about the mentoring work, because it demonstrates both knowledge and patience, which are key attributes for an admin. --RL0919 (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
19. No problems. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
20. Support - Absolutely. I've seen nothing but great contributions from you, and we definitely need more admins with the patience to deal with new editors. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 15:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
21. Support; Appears to be competent, hardworking, and can be trusted with the tools. The helpfulness is a big plus; I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that wikipedia's quality, in the long term, depends on how well we engage good new editors (not just how we deter bad ones). bobrayner (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
22. Support - I seen the Worm around often, great contributor will do fine. Mlpearc powwow 16:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
23. Support - Looks to me after reviewing the above that you will be a good addition to the mop-and-bucket crew. Best wishes, Jusdafax 17:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
24. Support. In every interaction I've had with the candidate, he's been friendly and helpful. Anyone who has the patience to deal with some of the mentees he has without going postal clearly has the temperament to deal with whatever adminship might throw at him. 28bytes (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
25. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
26. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
27. Support I have not reviewed this editor's work for this RfA but over the years I have seen this person on pages which I have edited and I remember the username as being one that was attributed to good edits. I see that WtT now wants adminship; helpful editors should have this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
28. Assumed that the worm was an admin already, so let's make it so! AD 17:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
29. Support Review of random recent contributions shows clue and restraint, valuable attributes for an admin. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
30. Support Seen the candidate around often and always in a positive matter. He should be as clueful as an admin as he is now as an editor - despite the weird name ;-) Regards SoWhy 18:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

    Funny you mention that as it did give me an (albeit fleeting) pause - a reformed vandal or similar on sign up? But on balance, and AGF and all that, I suspect not. Probably got bored trying to find anything shorter as they're all taken! Pedro :  Chat  18:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

    Not far off. I've had this username since 1998, when I couldn't think of a decent name for a hotmail email address- all the good ones were taken. 13 years later, and I am still using it Worm^TT · (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

    Ah, come on, Pedro, there are plenty of awesome short usernames still left. Just ask Δ or Σ. ☂ (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

    Dang. I just realized my favorite unicode character was taken: User:☃ :| -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

    Why don't you usurp it? --The Σ ^talk_contribs 04:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

    Ah, I love it! At first I thought it was the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. If they ever add that to the Unicode standard, I'm usurping the hell out of it. ☂ (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

    I call the SUL for the snowman :P --The Σ ^talk_contribs 00:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

31. Support - Easy decision. Great contributor and terrific mentor. Worm has immense patience with adoptees - even very difficult ones. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
32. Support Excellent answer to question 1, both in demonstration of need and commitment to take it slow in areas with less experience. Monty₈₄₅ 21:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
33. Support Makes a persuasive case so I'm piling on. No need to thank me for my support when this passes, in case you were planning to. You're welcome. Regards, causa sui (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
34. Looks like a great candidate. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
35. Support I didn't really research, but Pedro says it well. Everything I've seen indicates appropriate level of clue. Collect your mop at the door .. then go block Jimbo. :P — Ched :  ?  00:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
36. Support More than ready to wield the mop. --Sharkface^T/_C 00:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
37. Support strongly. Looks like an ideal candidate -- Samir 01:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
38. Support - I see no problems. James500 (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
39. Support – No issues here, and OTRS volunteers are always helpful. —mc10 (t/c) 02:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
40. Support - I see no issue with this user being a new admin. Seems very reliable and trustworthy. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 05:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
41. Support a great editor, I thought you already were an admin! Sumsum2010·T·C 05:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
42. Support - You're a very helpful editor to Wikipedia; you deserve a promotion for your contributions. Best regards. Bryce53 | talk 05:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
43. Support - Skilled editor who seems like they'd make a fine admin--GroovySandwich 06:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
44. Staples, that was easy. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
45. Support. I know you have been hesitant to pursue adminship, but I am grateful that you stepped forward. I have full confidence in your abilities to continue assisting others, while seeking guidance in areas with which you may not be familiar. I believe that you will be an excellent addition to the admin team. Best regards, Cind.amuse 08:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
46. Yep. Good answers to questions and you have a record of sound judgement. Thank you for putting yourself forward. EyeSerene^talk 09:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
47. Support and watch out for the jerks. That Mikeymand fellow had an aggressive tone to him right from the start. Probably some old Wiki-drama socker.TCO (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
48. Strong Support. I absolutely love those easy descisions in life. This is surely one of them. This editor has shown that he is capable, infact many users who have gotten into contact with him on Wikipedia, would have to of mistaken him for an administrator, for his excellent work and contribution to the project. You have my full confidence + support. Wondering why you didn't apply any earlier...but better late than never. Great work, excellent candidate, good luck! -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 13:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
49. Support. Sensible, level-headed editor who would put the tools to good use. More importantly, however, he realises the value of clotted cream! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
50. Support. Great contributor. Deserves to be an administrator.--EdwardZhao (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
51. Support - I see no reason to vote otherwise. Mato (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
52. Support - Looks like a very good candidate. -- Marek.69 ^talk 17:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
53. Support; cue "I thought he was already an admin" et al. Seriously, though, he looks great and I'm sure he'll do fine. Ironholds (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
54. Support - Most of my reasons for supporting have already been mentioned above (good answers, good contributions, no serious problems), but I'd like to also add that I've seen WTT involved in numerous discussions and he has always struck me as being very cordial and full of clue. -- Atama頭 18:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
55. Support - No concerns. Overall I think WTT is a well-rounded contributor with good ideas and reasonable inter-personal skills. Best of luck. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 18:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
56. Support - Everything looks good. You appear to have a good, even temperament, which is the most important thing I look for in an admin. I'm not hugely concerned with lack of XfD experience, as you seem clueful and cautious, and any mistakes you would make could be easily reverted by one of the other thousand admins. Barring the reveal of any particularly nasty skeletons in your closet it seems like you'll be accepted without any contention, so I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate you. Keep up the good work! Throwaway85 (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
57. Good luck, WTT. –BuickCenturyDriver 22:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
58. Support. WTT shows quality as an editor and, most importantly for RfA, a clear and calm demeanor when interacting with others, backed up with solid answers to the questions posed here - frankie (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
59. Support per Ironholds. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
60. Support. Seems like a trustworthy candidate. ~NerdyScienceDude 01:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
61. Support Knowledgeable, competent. The Interior (Talk) 02:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)\
62. Support - Good Heavens, I thought WTT was already an admin! I really like to see someone who's prepared to admit to any need to be cautious in areas with which they may be unfamiliar - this shows that they really can be trusted not to do anything daft through lack of knowledge or experience. I cannot see any reason why Worm shouldn't be awarded the mop; beautifully level-headed, a good communicator (even if things hot up a little), trustworthy, competent, and with nice amounts of brain-power to back it all up. Who cares if Worm starts off only in restricted areas? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 04:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
63. Swarm ^X 05:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
64. Support - Very easy decision. Although he barely scrapes through on some of my criteria, he has some very strong support here which I am please to put my name to. Worm and I have collaborated and crossed paths in many different areas and I know his work well. He has voted on over 30 RfA and also knows how to research and provide complex data, so he certainly knows what is expected here and would not risk this self-nom if there were any doubts as to his competency for wielding a mop handle. He is a mature, intelligent individual with a professional approach to his work here, and above all tact and diplomacy come up trumps every time. His creations and contributions to GA demonstrate a clear knowledge of the principles involved. His work on deletion and page patrolling may be low but they may not be his area of special interest - it might be the main occupation for many admins but there are plenty of other areas where his knowledge and communicative skills will be a great asset to the project. His work on adoptions is exemplary and leaves no further doubts as to how Wikipedia works.. There are absolutely no reasons to believe he would abuse the tools and he will probably use them sparingly to begin with. I wholeheartedly look forward to welcoming him to the corps of sysops. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
65. Support - Happy with the contributions I've seen. He's not hung up on Wikipolitics, does a good, solid job on the tasks that he does, and doesn't seem likely to abuse the tools. That's enough for me. Trusilver 06:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
66. Strong support Good editor with intelligence & calmness, who has demonstrated leadership and commendable goodwill towards less experienced editors, and whose content contributions improve all the time. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC) His response to my question about WP:BLP (and naming complainants in an alleged sexual crime was excellent. 13:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
67. Support. I'm with Kiefer on this one, and I think this editor has the right temperament. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
68. Support Obviously. I don't know how this person wasn't an admin in the first place. Minima© (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
69. Support — No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
70. Support - A perfect editor and no issues at all. Has 7 good articles and one DYK article.--Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 18:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
71. With a similar rationale to Reaper Eternal. Ben MacDui 18:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
72. Support Good content creator. Warden (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
73. Support. Seems sensible. Fences&Windows 19:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
74. Support - Everything I have looked gives me nothing to question suitability for the extra tools. GB fan (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

    Support. Good contributions. Although I am a little disappointed that Worm That Turned didn't comment on Kiefer.Wolfowitz's characterization of "Blue Ribbon Bacon Festival" as "your article". Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

    Between WTT's solo work on his article and my latest edits, there were some constructive edits. However, WTT started the article and did the majority of the research, so I speak of it being "his" article following WP convention. Am I mistaken?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

    I am unaware of this "WP convention" that you refer to. It would be helpful if you could direct me to a guideline that describes this convention. "Blue Ribbon Bacon Festival" is not "WTT's article". It is an article that has been written mostly by WTT. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

    Just a comment here, there's a very large difference between the saying something is "my" article, and any actions that might indicate ownership - something I am certain I don't exhibit and I have not observered from Kiefer. Quite simply, I understood what Kiefer meant and I dealt with his central points, I'm not pedantic and so not likely to worry the way he phrased his comment. Actions, not words, count for everything. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

    I disagree. There is not "a very large difference" between saying something is "my" article and actions that might indicate ownership. I also understood what Kiefer meant. However my desire for unambiguous wording is not pedantry. Readers could certainly be confused by Kiefer's statement and your lack of clarification. Words are actually very important in the medium of Wikipedia; it is almost the only way that editors communicate with each other. The use of words will become even more significant to you when you become an administrator. I am changing to "Oppose". Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

75. Support Since I already thought you were an excellent admin, I'll jump on this hayride. Danger (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
76. Support No issues here. WayneSlam 23:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
77. Support I am glad to support this well qualified candidate. My76Strat ^talk 01:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
78. Support. Sensible person, experienced enough. No problems here. Jafeluv (talk) 02:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
79. Support Level-headed, patient, and capable. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
80. Support Why not? —Terrence and Phillip 06:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
81. Support No offense meant to him, but any editor who actually cares about content enough to join the Wikicup means he is better than all of the rest of them. I would ask Worm if he thinks he thinks that content is better than gaining status (run in a meaningless but fun cup and run for a meaningless but fun mop) but he is already in regardless of any conversation. And his name reminds me of a FNM song. "Why not" is stupid though.Cptnono (talk) 08:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
82. Support Primarily because of his mentoring work that I've seen with user:Porchcorpter (a lost cause if ever there was). We have plenty of technical competence amongst our admins, but we also have far too many who see admin work as being its own justification, favouring the exercise of policy over added value. Worm seems to take a wiser view of this, and remembers that there is a broader picture. Inexperienced? Maybe - and the fix for that is experience. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

    "Primarily because of his mentoring work that I've seen with user:Porchcorpter". Helping me to be a better editor maybe? -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 09:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

83. Support I should declare first that WTT recently became my mentor, although we haven't had that much interaction as of yet. I have watched his editing for a while now, and he is always polite, patient and seems to have a wide ranging knowledge of policy. His extensive mentoring work thus far also should be highlighted. Seems he has what it takes to make a good admin. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 10:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
84. Support -- Tinu Cherian - 15:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
85. Support When I first met Worm I was surprised he wasn't an admin, when I first came across him I had spent just enough time on WP to start to get my bearings and kinda know how things worked around here. As far as I could tell Worm either satisfied or over satisfied the qualifications to become an admin. At first I thought he was an admin and I was surprised to find out he wasn't , although I'm glad I can now support him here.  Adwiii  Talk  16:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
86. Support Calm, level-headed, seems likely to do a good job at defusing conflicts. All-in-all, an excellent candidate. Scog (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
87. Weak support. I appreciate your OTRS and adoption work; therefore I'll support, despite your lack of experience in admin-related areas. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
88. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
89. Support I cannot see any major issues with this candidate. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
90. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
91. Support It has become more obvious to me that Worm will probably make a great admin, especially based on the reasonings of the supporters. So I am supporting now. Like in my neutral vote, I think that if Worm can be a humble administrator, then that'll be good. I am always grateful to my mentor for mentoring me. I'd suggest a closure per WP:RIGHTNOW, since this RFA has lots of support. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 06:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

    Just so you know, WP:RIGHTNOW is meant to be humor. RFA's get closed early when they don't succeed, not when they are going to. Ryan Vesey (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

92. Support Seems reasonable and a fair communicator which is a big plus. Would have liked to have seen more content creation but meh. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
93. Support--Ankit Maity ^{Talk • contribs} 07:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
94. Support - Editor has a habit of doing the correct thing. VQuakr (talk) 09:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
95. Support I've had only positive experiences with WTT and am sure he will be a level-headed and helpful admin. SmartSE (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
96. Support just feel that I need to support, I don't think adminship is a big deal TBloemink (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
97. Support. Sure, looks good. --KFP (contact | edits) 18:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
98. Support. Regular communicating in IRC, don't have any problems with him. So why not? mabdul 18:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
99. Support, a good candidate, disagree with oppose number 2. If the editor would benefit the project, and there are no suspicious signs, what does it matter whether their activity fluctuates somewhat? I'd understand if it was very spiky, but it isn't. --Taelus (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

    Support number 100. How does it feel? Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

100. Support. Why not? --John (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
101. Support - Per above. Monterey Bay (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
102. Support Ticks all the right boxes for me - as others have detailed above; demonstrable patience, understanding and cluefulness.  Chzz  ►  03:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
103. Support Person has good answers to question and can be trusted with the tool. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 14:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
104. Support - The patience of Job shown by mentoring is almost enough for me, but the answers and actual experience seal the deal. WTT has clue and will be an asset.  Frank  |  talk  19:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
105. Support. Absolutely yes, per above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 23:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
106. Support – of course. —GFOLEY FOUR— 04:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
107. Support. Highly clueful editor, helpful to others, answered questions intelligently, no red flags. Rivertorch (talk) 06:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
108. Support. Level-headed editor dedicated to impoving the encyclopedia. Will make a fine admin, even if he/she/it does focus on topics that are rather odd. LK (talk) 08:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

     Just thought I'd comment on this. One is just cleanup that I do, one was working with one of my mentees, but I can't excuse my work on Stargazy pie, I wouldn't go near it, it sounds horrible. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

109. Support. I don't weigh in on a lot of RfAs, and it's not as if this one won't succeed anyway, but I can't not comment. What do we want in administrators? Experience is nice, but cluefulness is essential, and Worm has that in abundance. Being a good and patient communicator is definitely an asset for an admin, and his ability to take constructive criticism in a positive manner and pick out any good points from not-so-constructive criticism while discarding the destructive stuff without letting it get to him (or so it seems, anyway) is truly admirable, and definitely something I want from a Wikipedia admin. Or, in other words, "What they said." --bonadea contributions talk 10:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
110. OK. not as much as you but enough. Nice to see someone put work in to helping others become better contributors. Would have been at #2 but got back from perusing your menteeship of User:Porchcorpter to see them in the neutral column so thought it prudent to dig up some more dirt on you ;-) --ClubOranje^T 10:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
111. Support for his conduct in the User:Pdfpdf shenanigans, weakly for mangling the title of his userpage with technical wizardry. jorgenev 12:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
112. While I think it would be a best-case scenario for all new administrators to come into their new roles with a vast wealth of admin-related knowledge, we all know that isn't really possible. In my opinion, that's what the new admin pages are for - to provide extended knowledge and a bit of guidance. Common sense to know that there is an issue in a particular instance, that there must be an answer somewhere, and to have a general idea of where to look for said answer (commonly referred to as part of "cluefulness") is a great aid to any new admin. That being said, I don't see any reason to believe that WTT does not have a clue and that giving them a mop would be a detriment to the community. Support Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 17:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
113. Support will make a great admin. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
114. Support. I see nothing that even comes close to raising any red flags for me in any of the opposing comments. I like what I see in terms of being friendly to new users (including adoptions), having a clear and constructive plan for where to use (and not use) the tools, and the sense that I get that the candidate is not the kind of person who would do any harm. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
115. No alarms here, seems clueful. Just go steady at CSD for a while. GedUK  20:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
116. Pile on support. I do want to point out that User:Axl is mostly right that the use of language is important in an online collaboration where other forms of communication such as body language do not exist.--v/r - TP 22:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
117. Support. Trustworthy and adminship is no big deal. Egg Centric 22:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
118. Support. There is definitely enough to show reliability. I am sort of surprised by those talking about instability because of an absence. If an editor only had the ability to access Wikipedia 2 months out of the year and was a solid contributor for 6 years, I would view his trustworthiness as at least as established as someone who had made comparable contributions over one year. I also just find this editor an odd choice to make an absence argument in the first place. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 22:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
119. Support. On several occasions I've introduced new editors to Worm's adoption school, sometimes because the editors were encountering (or causing) difficulties, sometimes purely because the editors wanted to learn as much as possible about editing, in a structured way. The very strong impression I get when observing Worm's mentoring, is of someone with a very calm temperament, who - as noted in his answer to Q3 - really doesn't get stressed about anything on Wikipedia. That's a quality that's very valuable in an administrator, but I'm doubly happy to support when I see in his answers to some of the other questions, that despite his relaxed demeanour, he's prepared to take a hard line on issues where it's really needed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

     Well said!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

120. Support. See no concerns here. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
121. Support - No concerns. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 07:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I have concerns about the candidate's experience, and I think more could be done to show us that the candidate is capable and competent in admin areas, particularly in areas relating to deletion. The candidate expresses an interest in helping with the admin backlog (which is very general and could include anything) and specifically with OTRS, AIV, CSD's, and XfD's, but I see very little experience in most areas with admin backlogs. It appears that you have tagged a total of 3 articles for speedy deletion, a total of 6 articles were PRODed, and you have contributed to a total of 38 AfD discussions of which you were the nominator for nearly half. The latest PROD I checked was applied with a reason of "place reason here". The candidate has only really been active for less than a year, and has about 6000 edits in that time, which is acceptable in my opinion but on the relatively low side for RfA, and in these marginal cases I want to see strong signs of familiarity with admin areas. Tag a bunch of articles for CSD, do some prod patrolling (declining and seconding other editors' prods), perform some non-admin closures at AfD, vote in more AfD's, provide some third opinions etc., so that we can get an idea of how you will operate in these areas as an admin. I applaud your work with adoption/mentoring and your GA's/DYK's, but that work doesn't require adminship. I feel this RfA is a bit premature and I'm not seeing a need for the bit at this point. But it looks like you'll probably pass, and if you do I wish you the best of luck. —SW— ^spout 18:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

   FWIW, I did a quick run through his deleted edits and counted around a dozen CSD taggings of articles and about half a dozen taggings of images, as well as several PRODs. What those logs count are articles PRODded or CSD tagged using Twinkle and only since he configured Twinkle to log them. The dodgy PROD you point out is a BLP PROD, and that rationale is a problem with the template, not the tagger. Most of the rest is a matter of opinion, so I won't argue with you over those (suffice to say I disagree). But I would respectfully ask you to reconsider. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

   I took another look and you're right, the "place reason here" issues is a template problem, not a mistake by the candidate. Stricken above. I still maintain that a mere dozen CSD taggings and "several" PRODs is simply not enough for anyone to determine how well the candidate understands the criteria for speedy deletion, and how he would close XfD's and make decisions on speedies. The fact that a relatively high percentage of CSD taggings by WTT were declined is not a good sign, but the percentage may only be high because the sample size is so small. —SW— ^talk 21:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

   Yes, I agree that the sample size is is small - not everyone is a seasoned NPPer like you and I ;) He does a huge amount of work in other areas that require great tact and diplomacy, and those for me are among the most important qualities for admins. His mentoring may require insight to deleted pages and files, and although OTRS is a background task, I can hardly imagine it being done effectively with out the tools. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

   Snottywong, can I first thank you for your review, and the time you've taken over your oppose. I can certainly see your point of view, and had someone asked the "write a credible oppose" question, I'm sure I would have said something similar. I am a little disappointed with how you've characterized my answer to your questions though - you asked me two very different questions, what do I think I could and couldn't do, and what do I intend to do. Yet, it appears you've combined my answers and lost my comments about my level of caution. It may help you if I were to quantify my caution, especially for something like AfD, which I put between "can and can't". I believe experience is everything, and so I would not close any AfD before I had participated in 300 AfD discussions (participated meaning "actually participated", not just driven by and supported nom). Even then, I'd work up slowly. I say this not to change your !vote (which I think is perfectly reasonable), but to help allay your fears and because I really AM that cautious on things that matter (by definition, the admin tools). Could I also ask what you categorize as a "high percentage of CSD ... declined"? Worm^TT · (talk) 06:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

   I am particularly impressed by the voting matrix in that link. He has only had a view contrary to the final outcome 5 times. Ryan Vesey (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

   Vox populi, vox Dei? Hardly! Ibsen had a more accurate but still optimistic take: "The majority is always wrong! A minority is rarely right!"  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

   Worm, I appreciate that you will try to be cautious and I trust that you will. I didn't ask Q5 with any ulterior motive, I was concerned about your lack of experience in admin areas, and your answer to Q1 was lacking details. If your answer to Q5 had included something like "I have very little experience or interest in CSD/AfD, and don't expect to work in those areas at all as an admin", then I probably would have been in the neutral column. In my opinion, admins shouldn't be cautiously learning the basics of admin areas after they become an admin, they should already know the basics, and a couple dozen AfD's and CSD's is not enough to learn the basics. Regarding my comment about the high percentage of CSD declined, I don't know the exact percentage because I can't see your deleted edits, but HJ Mitchell mentioned you had tagged about a dozen articles for speedy deletion, and I believe I found a few (maybe 2 or 3? I could be way off) that had been declined. 3 out of 12 is an error rate of 25%, which is huge for CSD. Most experienced editors and admin candidates are under 2-3%, which is easy to attain if you have a couple hundred CSD's under your belt. —SW— ^{spill the beans} 18:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

   Small correction: 12+3 = 15 --> 3 of 15 ~~ 20% mabdul 13:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

   Not that it matters, but you're wrong. I meant that he had 12 CSD taggings total, and 3 of the 12 had been declined, not that 3 had been declined and 12 had been accepted. Again, my stats are probably wrong anyway, and 20% really is no different than 25% when it comes to a tagging error rate. —SW— ^chat 15:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

2. Oppose (might go to neutral). I'm sorry, but your edit count seemed a little low and when I looked at your monthly edit count, I saw a very prolonged period of little to no activity. If you can show long term stability with regular editing, I will be happy to support !vote you. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 17:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

   I would just like to note that he has had a period of stability of one year. Really, I would say that this proves that there is no instability as an editor because the previous year is the bulk of his editing. Ryan Vesey (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

   He did have 12 months of stability, but 25 months of instability. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 18:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

   Irrelevent, everyone has "instability" before they become an active editor. Worm was unusual in that he experimented with editing for a while before he became an active editor. If he had made a lot of edits, then quit for a month, then edited for 2 months, then off for 3 that would be instability. Infrequent editing before active editing does not show instability. Ryan Vesey (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

   I'd rather this RfA didn't become a picture board for badgering opposers. I understand Crazymonkey's view, and have explained the reasons for my editing gaps on IRC - should anyone else be interested, please do email me and I'll happily explain, though I'd rather not publish it on Wikipedia for personal reasons. If he feels that 12 months of stability is insufficient, then he is entitled to that opinion. Worm^TT · (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

   Sorry, I was not attempting to "badger the opposers." Instead, I was just trying to offer some further analysis of his oppose. I apologize if I seemed to be badgering. Ryan Vesey (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

   Hope I wasn't badgering the badgerers... Don't worry about it Ryan, I'm flattered really. But both Crazymonkey and Snottywong have valid complaints and whilst I appreciate your opposite point of view, I don't want them to feel they have done anything wrong by expressing it. I guess it's my WP:RfA reform 2011 hat coming out. Worm^TT · (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

   He has been editing actively for ten of the past eleven months. What difference do the previous 25 months make? Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

   Note: Opposer is now blocked. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 22:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

   The user self requested the block and is not relevant to this rfa or vote. Calmer Waters 23:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

3. Oppose. I have concerns regarding WTT's communication with other editors. See under !vote 74 in the "Support" section. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

   I knew there was a large chance you would change your vote based on my comment above, and considered staying quiet, however I decided that I'd rather the community could see me being me, rather than a sanitised version of myself. Perhaps I could have been more diplomatic with the way I made my comment, but effectively what I meant was that I consider the inaccuracies in Kiefer's statement a non-issue. If I implied what he said was correct, I apologise, but I knew what he meant, he knew what he meant, you've stated that you knew what he meant and I believe the vast majority of users would know exactly what he meant. I'm not going to chastise someone for making a minor mistake on the periphery of their central point, I don't see how it would help anyone. I will however keep in mind your point that words do matter, you are absolutely right and my cliched comment was rather rash. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral leaning support Although you have been a good mentor, I'm still not sure that if you are experienced in the admin areas. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 09:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC) It's becoming more obvious to me that Worm will make a good admin, so I am moving to support. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 06:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The cure for lack of experience...is experience. Just my 2p worth. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't going to comment, but given the background between myself and Porchcorpter, where I've spent the better part of 3 months trying to dissuade him from adminship before he is ready, I can understand that he would expect me to reach a higher bar than other editors may. I certainly respect that point of view and feel he's been very gracious and reasonable in his comment. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I just want to add that Worm makes good interactions with his fellow Wikipedians, particularly with his mentees. If he can act like a humble administrator and is willing to work with his fellow non-admins with the tools, then that'll be good. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 07:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Analysis needed-- you have a typo in your nomination statement (it's wise to take more care with these things), mention numerous DYKs and GAs but don't name them, and a quick glance at only one of your GAs (Bacon ice cream), shows uncited original research in both the lead and the body. "Bacon ice cream has started appearing on on many high-end restaurant dessert menus, where it is generally well received." I hope it doesn't fall to me again to analyze the quality of the content you use to further your candidacy, and that someone else will do the work this time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

   You missed it, ("This is probably one of the most difficult think I've ever done on Wikipedia,"), but I share the ce weakness :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

   I feel very, very stupid. I will be tidying up Bacon ice cream based on Sandy's comment. I should also point out the article was reviewed by User:Racepacket, so probably didn't get the most robust review. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

   Might be worth pointing out this only seems to be a minor technical case of OR as you wasn't saying anything false. Bacon ice cream has begun to appear in many fine dining establishments so no harm done. Sandy had a point as though you had a couple of cites with examples of BIC appearing in individual high end restaurants they don't specifically say the dish has appeared in many. Even without a RS that summarises the general trend, I think it would be fine to at least say "the dish has begun to appear in several high end restaurants", as that's interesting and correct info that would reflect the sources, but doesn't reach beyond them. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

   Writing food articles is hard-- I don't see this as a big problem, or I would have opposed (I didn't check other articles). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

   Move to support following a direct, conscientious answer to my question (#4). (I also appreciate WTT's work on Star Trek articles, etc.) WTT behaved well when I complained about one of the youths that he is mentoring: He did not fixate on my mistaking a PROD of a redirect/picture (I forget which) for a PROD of an article, but fairly quickly dealt with my concern about the (imho) rough templating of a new and potentially very valuable contributor.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC) 22:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

2. Neutral I cannot outright support you because of your lack of admin-related area experience, but I cannot outright oppose either due to your OTRS and mentoring work. I'm sure you will do fine, and will gain experience in the Wikispace in no time. :)   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 07:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The above adminship 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.