Consistent and Correct[edit]

I am very pleased to see WTT making a bid to stay on the Committee. After all these years WTT is one of the very few Arbitrators to carry the institutional memory so essential to the tasks. His impartial and just treatment without favouritism or discrimination has made him a role model for adminship and Arbcom. I've known and collaborated with WTT since long before he was an admin and my comment here still stands true over 10 years later. WTT has continued to take his involvement on Wikipedia very seriously. He is a forward thinker and actively participates on all major discussions - if indeed he hasn’t actually launched them himself. A first class knowledge of policies, he knows he’s good at what he does but is no power seeker. He does not feel forced to vote with the mainstream, instead he reflects solidly before commenting, and just gets on with the job. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:22, 9 November 2021

Thank you @Kudpung:, I appreciate the kind words Worm^TT(talk) 08:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A very welcome candidacy[edit]

My feeling is that WTT, if re-elected, will continue to be an important and beneficial member of the committee from both a community and ArbCom clerk perspective. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 02:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Dreamy Jazz, I've always relied on the clerks as an arbitrator, so I'm glad that I'm not just considered a burden! Worm^TT(talk) 08:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also I support WTT. My experience is that they can remain calm and focused and just also in for some tense situations and I believe they should be allowed to give their opinion to some more cases.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gets my support[edit]

WTT is one of the best arbitrators ever. I can talk to him one-on-one on controversial decisions and subjects, and come away thinking he's listened properly and explained why Arbcom took the actions they did. He's also gone out of his way to break down the perception that Arbcom are "us" and the rest of the community is "them" - Arbcom are not "the enemy", they are just volunteers doing a seriously difficult and demanding job. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional - this is an old, but good example of WTT having incredible patience and tolerance far beyond the call of duty : User talk:WormTT/Adopt/Since 10.28.2010. I'd have blocked the adoptee as WP:NOTHERE and moved on, myself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words @Ritchie333, though that's probably not the best example, since I did end up blocking him for NOTHERE! Worm^TT(talk) 14:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You did, but before that you tried to see if you could get him out of the hole he dug. I wouldn't even have had the patience to go that far and just blocked from the outset. (I can't remember how I found that adoption page, but it's like an Ed Wood movie or a juicy drama-filled ANI thread, you shouldn't look, but somehow you do anyway....) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holy wow. This is the patience I aspire to live out with my kids and rarely achieve. Retswerb (talk) 04:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's true, I have a lot of patience. I like to look beyond the pressing issue to see a root cause, which in theory should solve the problem better than treating the symptom. However, in recent years, my patience has worn thinner, and especially on Arbcom, I do end up drawing the line under individuals that I would like to have been able to spend more time rehabilitating, if my time and energy was infinite. So, I'm not sure my work from 10 years ago has that much relevance here and worry it may give a different impression of what I actually do these days. Worm^TT(talk) 10:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also I support WTT. My experience is that they have the ability to remain calm and focused and I believe they should be allowed to lend their expertise to some more disputes.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Careful and thoughtful answers to questions[edit]

...including mine, which I now realize were hard to answer without detailed context. Has my support. NightHeron (talk) 10:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @NightHeron. Worm^TT(talk) 14:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tossing in my support for Worm That Turned[edit]

As what have been observed through bad community governance in the Chinese Wikipedia, I do once again strive for the importance of self-management and the idea of resolving problems instead of applying barriers in the process. It is apparent through, from past examples and answers to my questions, that Worm That Turned is definitely a yes for this vote.--1233 ( T / C） 03:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @1233. I do hope I can keep en.wp from falling down such a rabbit hole. Worm^TT(talk) 10:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose[edit]

I oppose it. I'm so tired (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Any particular reason, Tonton Bernardo? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • Yes, Peter,

since November 2020 his constribution are User talk:Worm That Turned' or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/  :

***11:11, 17 February 2021 diff hist  +10‎  Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions ‎ →‎Motion: Remedy transfer to Gender and sexuality shell case: adding
***11:11, 17 February 2021 diff hist  +265‎  Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions ‎ →‎Motion: Remedy transfer to Gender and sexuality shell case: good idea
***08:50, 15 February 2021 diff hist  +517‎  User talk:Worm That Turned ‎ →‎Contact info: Replying to AlaChuckthebuck (using reply-link)

You may check it out: Contributions: Worm That Turned Out of his last 1000 edits (1 year) 99% turned around Wikipedia Aribtration Committee' or his User page.

Ah, yes, there were 3 great edits in highly qualitative articles: *BLT and on 10 November 2020 (yes: last year, one year ago) even 3: Crempog, Welsh rarebit and Laverbread.

Well, with this 4 high quality edits he certainly merrits to be the super-duper Arbitration Committee admistrator of wikipedia.

So, now please, Peter, it's your turn: We should he/she merrit to be a member of the Arbitration Committee or even Admin ??? Any reason for this? Are you his friend ??? Do you like him/her???

I suggest that you look also at the other candidates: 80% are junk edits. I only had the time for 3 candidates..... but this is the worst case.

I wonder, always when i oppose somebody,k I have to explain myself. Why are all those Yes-Great-whow-tellers freed of it, but opponents have to explain themselves ? There is something very wrong here in this place.

regards

(PS: I edited the subject: from oppose to strong oppose

I'm so tired (talk ) 02:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tonton Bernardo. Thanks for the feedback. You are right, of course, I have not made nearly as many edits to article space as I'd like, it has been over a year since I found myself with the time to sit down and actually work on articles. I also can't guarantee that I will be able to in the short to medium term. I will say, I doubt I would be working on articles even if I had taken a break this year, or if I do not get elected. Writing articles for me requires a solid block of time, say, a few days, to sit down, research the topic, summarise the sources, and copyedit my text. I'm not the fastest at doing it by any means and my free time for Wikipedia is more sporadic. Happily, I can find time to manage Arbcom business, the day to day load is manageable, and the larger items like cases can be managed over weeks, where I can find the time.
I will ask though, do you believe that qualitative edits are the only area that a person can be useful to the encyclopedia? If your argument is that I'm not spending enough time on the "shop floor" and therefore I'm not familiar with policies or community thinking, then I invite you to challenge me on areas that you feel I might be lacking on that with questions at my question page. If, however, you believe that my time on the committee is something that is simply a plaudit, then I invite you to look a little more into the workload associated with being on the committee - This is a good summary by a current committee member.
So, yes, the vast majority of my edits are to pages starting with Wikipedia:Arbitration Commitee because I believe my work on those pages helps to break through disputes in some of the most controversial areas of Wikipedia. If i didn't feel that work as valuable, I wouldn't be spending my time doing it. Worm^TT(talk) 12:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit count is often a poor metric of performance. Some people do a huge amount if work behind the scenes, especially the best Arbitrators. Anyone who has 3 FAs, 30 GAs, and 54 DYKs under their belt, mentored over 35 users, and been an Arbitrator for several years, has no need whatsoever to justify what might on the surface happen to look like a lack of recent activity. Yes, there's definitely something very wrong here in this place... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User has an active history as a moderator. Their contributions to other articles are irrelevant. Simply contributing a lot to articles doesn't guarantee someone will make a good administrator. Arbitrary expansion of articles has never been Wikipedia's focus, and curators are needed more than contributors at this stage. Especially consider that if someone is making beneficial and consistent expansion to articles, why distract them with additional duties? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IronMaidenRocks, "Arbitrary expansion of articles has never been Wikipedia's focus, and curators are needed more than contributors at this stage" -I disagree entirely with that statement. For example, today I looked at Pink Floyd bootleg recordings and it is still largely unsourced unverifiable fancruft, despite me complaining about it nine years ago, I also noticed Meddle Tour has one citation to setlist.fm - there's a non-trivial chance that would be speedy deleted if created today, and List of Blind Faith concerts hasn't had any of the citation requests I asked for over two years ago. I think my comments at Talk:Farfisa#Problems with this article speak for themselves, and we currently have over 1,600 unreferenced BLPs, any or all of which could contain libel? It's not really got anything to do with being an arb, except maybe as a suggestion they should always focus on content improvement as the main priority. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I think WTT's calm and considered response to Tonton Bernardo (who has already been blocked and topic banned for personally attacking editors) is another reason why I am happy to have voted for his re-election. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

':@Ritchie333 '

No usefull contributions of this User on Wikipedia since. Reference: [Special:Contributions/Worm_That_Turned&offset=&limit=500&target=Worm+That+Turned] Do you still "support" him? Or did you just wanted to push another fake member ? Where have you got the informations from, that I have been banned ? [Special:CentralAuth?target=Tonton+Bernardo] I'm not banned here. Is it another fake ? Just at fr & german wikipedia on "my own request". What's your roll in this ?

Are you lucky now, with your vote ? I still had no reply, why it's always me to has to legitimate my 'against' votes, but not those 'Admins' and similar, that wave thru fake accounts. Any reply on this ? Maybe I don't have the right, submissive spirit for wikipedia. Regards I'm so tired (talk) 08:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tonton Bernardo. The election is over, and has been for a few months. As you can see from the results, the majority of the community don't agree with your point of view. I fully accept the criticism that I should spend more time on the "shop floor", and I would love to have some more time to write articles - however, describing me as a "fake member" and stating that my contributions so far this year are not useful are simply insulting comments.

Regarding @Ritchie333's comment that you have been blocked for personally attacking editors - you were blocked by @Diannaa for personal attacks, see block log. Going back a bit further, you are currently topic banned from RfAs and RfBs - see this notification after this discussion. Whatever your views on what people "should" be doing on Wikipedia, the language you are using is not conducive to the collaborative nature of the project.

You've had your say and I do take your general point on board, but coming to this page months after the election, to make insulting comments - well, I see no benefit to you doing it, and only down sides. If you're looking to get get yourself blocked again, I'm sure you're going the right way about it. Worm^TT(talk) 08:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Worm TT - I'm not personally attacking anybody. For me you are unsuitable for that function, and I said it.

What's your problem with free speech ?

Would you like to see me "blocked" , are you unhappy about it? Jesus, two weeks I did not notice it. Why is there no link on wikipedia start page to that "Block page"??? Certainly I am astonished how well you know internal pages. Why don't you know the public pages???

You'd better do some profitable edits (not just one or two alibi-edits per year). But now you got it: he's a 'Arbitration Committee Elections' member and can kick useful Wikipedia members out. What for ??? You'll better stop looking every day into the 'Arbitration Committee Elections' pages, and try to do useful things or edits in your life. But some people don't simply care. Or there will remain only 'Arbitration Committee Elections member' and no useful editors anymore.

Cheers I'm so tired (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tonton Bernardo - you might want to re-read your statement this morning, where your state that I have no useful contributions since December, and called me a fake account. Both of which are specific personal attacks against my conduct as a Wikipedian. You are absolutely welcome to believe I am not suitable to act as an arbitrator, you're not the only person who feels that way, I'm not everyone's cup of tea and I fully respect your right to put forward that opinion. You simply need to do so in a manner that does not insult or denigrate.

I would not like to see you blocked, if I did, I would be raising the issue at the administrators' noticeboard. I am trying to help you realise that your manner is not helpful, and whilst you have a reasonable underlying point, they way you are expressing it is going to lead to it being ignored.

As for why I've seen this, well, I have this page on my watchlist - unsurprisingly, as it is the page people use to deliver comments about me. That's how watchlists work - not that I've been opening the page each day to see what's going on.

Finally, to your underlying point - there is more going on in this encyclopedia than content creation. The area that I'm making a difference is "dispute resolution", because sometimes editors and groups of editors disagree. Without a way to resolve those disputes, the content will not be created. That role is useful and necessary. It also says nothing to the work I do behind the scenes, protecting the encyclopedia from rogue admins, helping those with mental health issues and generally helping the smooth running of the encyclopedia. There's more going on than simple editing of article space. Worm^TT(talk) 10:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'@Worm That Turned' You don't want to contribute to the wikipedia, but you want to be in the 'Arbitration Committee' ? So, why are you here?

Aha, you state, that I am offending you: no, I am just telling the facts ! There's a rather quite difference.

Come on, you guys want to be everything but not contribute. Why don't you so exclude me - I will really appreciate. I won't mind. Because I do not like at all this manner here that I always have to justify my vote, when I vote negative on a special' client. That's a way that democracy doesn't work. Why do I have to justify my vote ??? Did anybody ask those 500x accounts who supported you (fake accounts ??) why they supported you. I stay with it: strong oppose. Regards I'm so tired (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tonton Bernardo No one is asking you to "justify" your vote, your oppose has been accepted, along with 242 other individuals who also voted to oppose me. What I am asking you to stop doing is minimising the contribution of myself and many other contributors who don't add to the encyclopedia in exactly the manner you wish. Or more simply, replying here - I don't intend to reply further. Worm^TT(talk) 11:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? strong 3 edits..... that's your effort in Wikipedia ???? That's why you need to be an 'arbitration committee member'.

What's wrong with you, I made 3 edits today, why don't you make it??? Why do you see yourself of such importance to be an arbitration committee member' ???

Yes, Wikipedia is going nuts, I admit it !*

regards

I'm so tired (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Worm that cut, what happend.

No articles created, no articles edited but:

1 April 2022

• 10:30, 1 April 2022 diff hist +1,014‎ Talk:Welsh rarebit ‎ →‎AKA Mousetrap / Merge with Cheese on Toast?: Reply current Tags: Reply Source

31 March 2022

• 16:01, 31 March 2022 diff hist +198‎ User talk:Doug Weller ‎ →‎Surgery went well yesterday: Reply Tags: Reply Source

30 March 2022

• 13:40, 30 March 2022 diff hist +246‎ User talk:Doug Weller ‎ →‎Best of luck!: Reply Tags: Reply Source
• 09:26, 30 March 2022 diff hist +332‎ Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Request for comment on administrator activity requirements ‎ →‎25 - 31 March: Reply Tags: Reply Source

28 March 2022

• 13:53, 28 March 2022 diff hist +574‎ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case ‎ →‎WikiProject Tropical Cyclones Discord: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <8/0/0>: Reply Tags: Reply Source
• 08:25, 28 March 2022 diff hist +1,208‎ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case ‎ →‎WikiProject Tropical Cyclones Discord: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <8/0/0>: Reply Tags: Reply Source

27 March 2022

• 19:09, 27 March 2022 diff hist +291‎ User talk:Worm That Turned ‎ →‎Resigning: Reply current Tags: Reply Source
• 18:56, 27 March 2022 diff hist +66‎ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case ‎ →‎WikiProject Tropical Cyclones Discord: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter: update and resign for ping
• 18:55, 27 March 2022 diff hist +502‎ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case ‎ →‎WikiProject Tropical Cyclones Discord: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter: +
• 07:38, 27 March 2022 diff hist +507‎ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case ‎ →‎WPTC Discord off-wiki canvassing: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter: +

What's going on, are you on intellectuel strike ???? Is there nothing.?? Help, wikipedia needs editiors, not "somebody that edits arbritratioin/request/cases... Arrgh, merge with cheese and toast is the hammer.

I created 29 articles last 15 days, and edited a hundred others... I wonder why you are in strike and refuse to the same. Is there a reason?.. Are you a Russian backward post ?.? CIA agent,??? or the like?? What are you dojing here and who are your friends that waved you thru???

regards I'm so tired (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tonton Bernardo As I've said, I'm not discussing further at this location. If you wish to complain about my behaviour, please do raise issues at my talk page or at WP:AN. I will also point out that I offer a recall process, for all my user-rights, detailed at User:Worm That Turned/Recall process. Worm^TT(talk) 12:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Worm As I've said, I'm not discussing further at this location.ù

Ah yes, you don't want to discuss anymore ?? Why this .?? You have nothing to legitimate yourself ?? Yes, that's a real problmem, but it's yours. I propose that you'll turn down all mandates and posts at wikipedia, and we will not talk about it anymore. Otherwise: who did you bring here, as a 'edit noob"??? CIA, KGB, or another secret service??? What for, are you here ??? Just to manipuliate wikipedia pages ??? I will not obey you. You're to be fired, in my opinion, and the quicker or sooner, the better it will be. Regards I'm so tired (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]