Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WJBscribe

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

WJBscribe

Final: (131/1/0); Ended 23:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 17:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am pleased to accept. Thank you for the kind nomination. WjBscribe 23:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I would like to assist in vandal fighting- there are few things more frustrating on Wikipedia than repeatedly reverting vandals that you reported for admin attention after a final warning some time previously. I have noticed a
WP:CSD. Also given my contributions at XfD (especially AfD and RfD) I would be willing to close discussions in those forums. I assist as a clerk with username changes- recently, it has been requested that clerks assist with moving pages over content when usurpation occurs [1]
. Admin tools would allow me to assist with this process.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: In the mainspace, I am pleased with my development of articles on UK politicians, such as John Reid and Ruth Kelly. I have also written most of the article on the Declaration of Montreal- I wish more information were available to take that one further. I am involved in translations from fr.wikipedia such as translating Bernadette Chirac and proof reading Christiane Desroches Noblecourt. Also, I have had significant involvement in improving Portal:LGBT. I am perhaps most proud of my dispute resolution efforts outside my main sphere of contributions however, most notably in a heated dispute between various representatives of Anesthesia providers in the US following the protecting of Anesthesia, which occupied a lot of my time last month (see Talk:Anesthesia). This dispute appears to have been resolved to the satisfaction of all parties, who now seem willing to work together.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I don't tend to get stressed over disputes on Wikipedia and try to find common ground with those I disagree with. I had an early disagreement with a user over the
WP:CHU/U pretty relaxing. Actually I find vandal reverting quite relaxing, but that's just me
.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support -- unhesitatingly. WjB has been consistently hard-working, thoughtful, and responsible, and has my complete trust. -- Ben TALK/HIST 21:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC) (Earlier listed, reverted, and now listed again: I wished only to say that my support for the nomination was not dependent on the nominee's acceptance or answers to questions -- I have simply seen so much of WjB's contributing style in issue-deciding areas (as distinct from article edits), and found it so consistently responsible (even in contentious discussions, even when we disagreed) that I no longer have any reasonable doubt as to how WjB will handle admin tools. -- Ben 23:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  2. Strong Support - Excellent candidate, have seem them all over the place. Would make an excellent addition as an administrator. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - I cannot imagine a single person on all of Wikipedia who would make a better administrator. WJBscribe has (mostly) a cool head, a sharp mind, and always discussions with his input come out much better for it. His contributions to
    WP:LGBT has been immense (though that automation of the Portal hasn't happened yet ;) ). WJB is friendly, helpful and polite. I genuinely believe that WJBscribe will prove to be one of our finest admins. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  4. Support per Chrislk02 and Dev920. Newyorkbrad 23:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support —dgiestc 23:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cliche Support - you mean he's not one already? --BigDT 23:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - an excellent candidate. - Richard Cavell 23:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Unquestionable support - I've seen your work over on
    WP:LGBT are extensive and legendary. I've seen you just about everywhere. (was holding off having anything to do with RFA until certain things were complete, but simply couldn't let this slip by). Another one of those "what? You're not an admin??" moments - Alison☺ 23:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  9. Strong support Great user, around everywhere and always very reasoned, will do great work Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Support Finally! WJBscribe is one of the most perfect candidates, he is a great user that will make a great addition to the administrative team. Cbrown1023 talk 23:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Easily. Kukini hablame aqui 23:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support! Great editor! :-) He'll make a really fine admin, I'm convinced of it. Raystorm 00:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Erm... yeah! I keep seeing WJBscribe literally everywhere and I think to myself "Wtf, not an admin???" It shocked me to realise he wasn't one, and even then I still kept forgetting. I offered to nominate him a few weeks ago, but Redvers beat me to it. WJBscribe is an asset here, knows exactly what he's doing and will make a fantastic admin. Good luck, not that you really need it... =) Majorly (o rly?) 00:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Will make a fantastic admin. No reason to oppose this user at all. --
    talk 00:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  15. Support per nom. I offered to nominate this user as well.
    masterka 00:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  16. Support. Ordinarily I'd say too soon, but from what I've seen of WJB I have no problems. I'm certain he'll be one of the best. —Moondyne 00:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Can't say it better than it's already been said. —Krellis (Talk) 00:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Excellent editor. Khukri 00:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I've seen this user everywhere, no doubt he'll make an excellent admin.--Húsönd 00:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. It's about time, too. I've been suggesting he do this for a while now. Jeffpw 00:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Of course. Xiner (talk, email) 00:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Without a doubt.--Xnuala 00:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Will be happy to see WJBscribe as an admin. I've seen him be a calming influence in some heated situations, as well as offering excellent advice. Does good work, is ready for the tools, and giving him the tools will help the 'pedia. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Very Strong Support Can't really make a supporting statement, I left my box of superlatives at home today. – Riana shiny disco balls 01:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Wow... really? Not a sysop? Hm... - NYC JD (interrogatories) 01:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong Support per many of the reasons listed above. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Most definitely Pascal.Tesson 01:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Supportas per all the reasons stated above.Shindo9Hikaru 01:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Strong Support per nomination. An admirable and competent user who will make an excellent administrator. Xdenizen 01:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Seems to understand policy from the interactions I've seen. Good nom. —Doug Bell talk 01:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support ~ trialsanderrors 02:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. yes yes yes. --- RockMFR 02:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strong support - it's hard to add to what's already been said - a fantastic editor. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 02:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong Support. Very active contributor on WikiprojectLGBT, one of the main contributors to that, excellent writer and negotiator, absolutely HornandsoccerTalk 02:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Now this user is indeed a good admin candidate! Captain panda In vino veritas 02:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support I've seen him a few times, and I admire his contributions. YechielMan 03:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. What?? I never expected to say this, but- "you are not already an admin"? Well, it's about time, then. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Excellent user. John Reaves (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support, all over the place, will use the buttons wisely. Kuru talk 04:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support WJBscribe is a good editor and I am sure will continue as a good administrator.
    Aleta 04:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  42. Strong support, I've always been very impressed with WJBscribe and am sure he'll make an excellent admin. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Will make an excellent admin. Beat me in vandal reverts and AIV's before i even clicked a button.... --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 05:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Yep. Seen a lot of good stuff.
    Daniel Bryant 06:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  45. Support a good candidate --Steve (Stephen) talk 08:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support as nominator. Obviously :o)
    RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 08:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  47. I-need-not-even-look-at-this-guy's-edits-to-tell-he's-admin-material-super-support - Jumping jehoahoa! This guy deserves the smelly cleaning device we have come to know as the mop. May it reek especially so when you bash vandals with it. 100% support & we hardly (if at all) know each other. Great work man... :) Spawn Man 09:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'm even willing to make an acception on the "6 month minimum rule" of mine because this guy is so great... Spawn Man 09:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support this is the first time I've ever seen
    Lwarf 09:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  49. Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support No reason not to jump on the bandwagon. --
    Folantin 10:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  51. Support I've been consistently impressed with WJBscribe's civility and other fine qualities, even from our first meeting. Happy to support.-- Chaser - T 12:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. No-brainer Support - Anas Talk? 12:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - Agathoclea 12:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Strong support. Adminship for you should have been automatic. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 13:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Strong support - This guy is everywhere and is superbly qualified. 100+% support. -- Jreferee 14:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. No question. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 15:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Strong Support I was thinking of nominating this user myself, particularly active in XFD's and generally an excellent user.
    addict 15:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  58. Support Yep.
    Spartaz Humbug! 16:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  59. Steel 16:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  60. Support Fantastic.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support, vehemently.
    (not Proto ►) 17:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  62. Yes please.
    Yuser31415 19:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  63. Support-- Nick t 20:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support as an excellent addition to the added responsibility which comes with the twiddled bit. I find WJBscribe to be an excellent contributor and see no indication the bit would be abused. Twiddle away. ···
    joe 20:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  65. Support per above.
    Addhoc 20:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  66. Hmm I thought he was an admin Support
    wat's sup 21:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  67. Support WJBscribe has done great work on Wikipedia, both with articles and items in the Wikipedia namespace. I feel comfortable giving the admin tools to a trustworthy candidate. Nishkid64 21:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 21:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. No red flags so far. Jayjg (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support → Why should I not?
    COI - 21:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  71. Support, skills used with patience. Modernist 22:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Excellent candidate – there are a few of those around at the moment.
    Bubba hotep 22:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  73. Strong Support, excellent and intelligent editor. He will use the tools wisely. --Asteriontalk 23:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support, (insert cliche here per NYC JD). · j e r s y k o talk · 01:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support looks excellent.-- danntm T C 01:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 02:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. Great, level-headed contributor. utcursch | talk 04:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. WJB is an excellent RfA candidate and I am sure he will make a fantastic admin. Sarah 05:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support mrholybrain's talk 10:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support My only concern is that this will detract from real-world drinking time. Cheers. Chrislintott 11:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. Mais oui, bien sur. Coemgenus 14:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Terence 15:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. Oh yes. Will (aka Wimt) 15:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support has excellent editing as well as janitorial experience. Definitely has my support.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support per Persian Poet Gal. Acalamari 18:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support NoSeptember 20:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  87. Support Should make a fine admin. Good luck. IrishGuy talk 22:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Definitely. Seen this user around and theres nothing but positive contributions. James086Talk|Email 23:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support I have seen this editor around and done business a couple of times. I can not see where giving the tools to this editor will hurt the project. I have faith that WJB will use the tools in accord with policy coupled with common sense. I do not foresee, based on the contributions and editor conduct where the tools will be abused. WJB, do what you can to improve the project. I have full faith, and confidence that you will do so. Now go write an encyclopedia. :P Navou banter / contribs 00:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support-Great editor. Active at admin places already. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 01:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support. Let's see if we can pull this to
    WP:100. bibliomaniac15 04:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  92. Support--MONGO 05:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support A good candidate/prospect. - Denny 05:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. Seen and appreciated at WP:RFCN Shenme 08:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support - Thought WJB already was an admin!Pedro |  Talk  12:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support - Isolated incidents are no big deal, we all goof up our communications every once in a while. In any case, adminship is no big deal. :) ——
    Need help? 17:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  97. Support. Michael 19:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Looks good to me. --Conti|✉ 22:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support for obvious reasons --Infrangible 01:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support - Yeah--
    SUIT 01:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  102. Storng support zero » 03:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support
    Real96 03:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Support Very good user, deserves adminship.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shindo9Hikaru (talk • contribs)
    I definitely appreciate the support, but you're already #29 :-) WjBscribe 03:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support Great user. -Mschel 11:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support And I'm not just being a bandwagon. :-) · AO Talk 12:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  106. I'm
    Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 13:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  107. Support! Congratulations on hitting
    MC♠ 15:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  108. Support without hesitation. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support. Darn, I wanted to be #100. :) — MalcolmMay the schwartz be with you! 19:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support High time. —SaxTeacher (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  111. It's not terribly meaningful by this point, but I give WJBscribe my compliments and support. Such as I have encountered of his work has been of the highest quality and diligence. I have no doubt he will make an excellent administrator. — Dan | talk 21:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support. I only drop by RfA every so often, and here I see none other than WJBscribe is up? Where do I sign? My edit isn't exactly required, at this point, but I will look forward to working with you as an administrator. Everything I've seen indicates you'll use the tools responsibly. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  113. El_C 00:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support An editor of exceptionally fine skill and laudatory demeanor. Never say "fie" of him. Salute! Pigmandialogue 01:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  115. I haven't any doubts about WjBscribe's integrity. I have wondered where all his energy and patience comes from, but adminship should take care of that. ;-) — coelacan — 04:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support -- helpful in WP:CHU =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support Wikipedia will be significantly enhanced by giving WjBscribe the tools. Good luck, Gwernol 14:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  118. I was gonna go neutral due to your relatively short time here and your nom using "bloody excellent" as a descriptor. But come on, I'd be a fool not to support you.--Wizardman 21:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support - I've seen this user around on
    WP:CHU, and I must say he's one of the more helpful users on the wiki. --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 23:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  120. Strong support, per
    cool stuff) 00:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  121. Support John254 00:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support! —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-25 00:53Z
  123. Support. See discussion below. Royalbroil T : C 01:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support Very helpful contributor.
    ShadowHalo 01:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  125. Overwhelmingly Strong Support VERY helpful in Anesthesia discussons. I appreciate his willingness to dedicate his time towards a rather dry topic. He is always available! Overwhelmingly strong support. ICUDocMD 05:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Unnecessary SupportDeserves to be an admin. Now. Dfrg.msc 21:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support Probably one of the fairest and most patient people i know.Mmackinnon 22:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  128. He will make a good admin:) --
    James, La gloria è a dio 00:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  129. Support Good editor, will make good admin.--Jersey Devil 06:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support I am new, but after looking through this user's contributions, I can see that WJBscribe will be a great help to people looking for... help! Social Studiously 12:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support Seen you around a lot, nothing but impressed! Chasingsol 22:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose (changed to support) - Edits like [3] - calling something that I strongly support "rubbish" - have the tendency to rub people the wrong way. The number of supporters of this RfA comfort me that this is most likely an isolated incident, and that WBJscribe will refrain from that kind of talk as much as possible after he is given the mop. The comment is enough to cause me oppose, though. Royalbroil T : C 13:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Royalbroil, personally I cannot see what the fuzz is about. It was not a personal attack, just WBJscribe speaking his mind. Are you sure this is reason enough to oppose? Seriously, I cannot see him going on a rampage using the tools to speedy stuff he does not like. I am sorry but I think this is more to do with sour grapes. I expect admins to be bold even if their opinions are not liked. As for the link you provided above, anyone else can follow the rest of the thread and would surely realise what a level-headed response it ensued from WJBscribe (i.e. [4]) . Obviously, you are entitled to your own opinion but voting oppose simply based on a disagreement on an AfD is just morally wrong. Regards, --Asteriontalk 18:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Royalbroil, to keep it short and simple: A flimsily justified revenge oppose like this is bad style. You may want to consider changing to abstention from voting and not ruin WJBscribe's well-deserved perfect tally just to make a point. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to ask editors not to make any further response to this oppose opinion or approach Royalbroil about it. He and I have discussed the matter from which this arose on his talkpage and I consider the matter closed. I understand that he is feeling pressured by responses (and perceived responses) to his !vote, and I do not wish anyone to made unhappy due to an opinion expressed in good faith. WjBscribe 21:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I originally opposed because I felt that my experiences with WJBscribe indicated that he would be likely to feed the trolls/vandals/idiots that we are all too familiar with. I promptly received an apology for his "rubbish" comment which I quickly accepted. I considered the matter closed. I posted a talk message to WJB after I felt strong pressure to change my vote. WJB quickly responded with a well-worded message. The message was so well composed and thought out that I decided to reconsider my decision. I dug deep into his history to see if my experience was an isolated incident. I spent two hours looking very critically at his past, especially discussions with anons, vandals, and XfD discussions. I found absolutely nothing wrong, in fact I found a strong history of solid decision-making and keeping calm/levelheaded in excited situations. I have decided to change my vote from oppose to support as I have indicated above. I urge Tshilo to reconsider his/her decision in light of my entire group of experiences with WBJscribe.
I made this decision because of the second positive experience with WJB, not because of pressure (whether perceived or real). I hope that a single vote on a single RfA is not enough to give a "bad reputation" to someone, especially when the decision was all but official before the vote was even cast. The whole editing history and decision-making ability of the contributor should be the basis of their reputation. I think that people should not be caught up getting a perfect tally as no one on earth is perfect. RfA is a highly critical process meant to separate "the men from the boys." I routinely see contributors pointing out non-major difficulties as a reason to oppose.
I noticed right after WJBscribe's last comment that he was from London. It took me a while to find a UK dictionary to see if there is a subtle difference between the U.S. & UK definition of "rubbish". There definitely is a difference. I took it as the American English definition "unwanted or worthless things" [5], but I believe he was intending to use the informal UK definition "something that you think is very low quality or not true." There is a big difference between "worthless" and "very low quality." Who hasn't run into misunderstandings caused by the subtle differences between the national versions of English? Royalbroil T : C 01:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should have used the eccentrically but thoroughly British "inverted pyramid of piffle"... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose for now. Hasn't been around long enough yet. My opposition will ultimately end up having no effect, but I don't think 4 months is long enough to establish that a new editor can maintain the persona they present in that time. Tomertalk 23:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely a fair concern. I believe that in this case you will be happily wrong, though. =) — coelacan — 04:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Time, pretty clearly, will tell. :-) Tomertalk 01:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Suggest user goes and does something useful with their life instead –
    Qxz 09:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I think this is a bad faith oppose. Majorly (o rly?) 10:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Qxy voted oppose on all 8 active RfAs and blanked their talk page with an incivil message in an apparent protest departure. —Doug Bell talk 10:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/WJBscribe&oldid=1146803059"