Meta:Requests for adminship/WJBscribe

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

23 Support, 3 Oppose, 1 Neutral = 88% → Promoted Nishkid64 (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WJBscribe[edit]

For those not familiar with me already, I am an admin and bureaucrat on the English Wikipedia and an admin on Commons. I have been participating on meta for some time and meet the minimum edit requirements. Although not highly active here I believe that I have obtained a good feel for the way that things are done on meta and an appreciation for how it differs from local projects. I often have cause to visit and would be willing to assist with routine admin tasks. My having sysop rights here would also mean that I can stop pestering meta admins on IRC to do things.

Although this is some way down the line, the area in which I feel I can contribute most to the meta community is probably with renames and other work for SUL implementation. I am by far the most active bureaucrat doing this work on enwiki. I have already sent quite a lot of users to meta so their global accounts can be deleted to allow local renames, and in due course would like to be able to help out with that workload now SUL is going live for all users. So I am partially making this request for admin rights with a view to ultimately obtaining the bureaucrat access that would enable me to do my bit in that area.

In short I feel that I can be of use here and hope you will be willing to trust me with some extra buttons. WjBscribe 18:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, absolutely. James F. (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support happily --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obviously not quite the usual request - however, not totally inactive and his comments in various discussions are highly thoughtful, despite my often disagreeing with them. I don't expect him to use admin tools every minute of every day, but will be of some use. Looking forward to working with more! Majorly ^talk 19:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yeah. – Steel ^en:Steel 19:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, comments seem thoughtful. --Kiensvay 19:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support for sure Huji 20:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support sure, no worries. Adambro 20:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - Only because of your edits to this wiki, you last 150 edits go back till January 2007, which simply means you are inactive and allowing one would mean that everyone will start following and using this as an excuse, not sure about others but I'm not really fond of inactive people becoming admins,...please help out on meta for a couple of months and just like I commented on Giggy's RfA, you need to learn about the policies here on Meta as well since none of your edits on Meta actually truly shows your potential here. I really hate opposing really good candidates, but people need to prove themselves worthy to be actually considered a part of Meta..--Comet styles 21:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cometstyles has a point, but I'll Support anyway, and promise that I feel the only precedent set regarding light counts is that we let active crats from other wikis that do a lot of renaming slide :) not just the average joes. (with apologies to any potential candidates named Joe). ++Lar: t/c 23:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support easy decision here: extremely trustworthy. Acalamari 23:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I understand (and to a degree agree with) Cometstyles' concerns, but I think WjBscribe's experiences as one of en.wp's most active 'crat renamers outweighs this concern; an exception to the rule, not the writing of a new one, as it were. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support exactly per EVula. Daniel (talk) 04:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, --_~Innv^s: 05:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - despite your inactivity (let's be honest - you are all but inactive here, there's no arguing there), I trust you absolutely, and agree that the cause is worth it. Good luck. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. guillom 07:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. SQL ^{Query me!} 03:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, agree w/ Anonymous Dissident. Cirt 11:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tacaíocht - I acknowledge the lack of edits on Meta :) However, this editor is a highly respected bureaucrat on the busiest wiki we have. While Comets makes a valid point re. knowledge of local policy, I'm not overly concerned as I trust Will to be diligent with adminship here. And yes, SUL - Alison ^❤ 07:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion moved to the talk page. It was becoming really long. guillom 13:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You are not active enough that I can decide if yes or no. So in doubt, I'd rather oppose. Sorry. --Thogo (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Fabexplosive The archive man 17:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Marbot 21:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confident he'll ask if he's unsure, and on that basis I Support. giggy _(:O) 08:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| ∇ 15:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately have to Oppose. I trust this user, but he apparently doesn't need adminship here— VasilievV ² 16:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --.snoopy.  19:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think trust is important here rather than activity. Even doing a few things well is valuable. --Bduke 11:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. trustworthy and likely to be more involved at Meta as things like SUL develop. NoSeptember 11:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]